Haul Road

RURAL PRIVATE PROPERTY
STATE
FORE
ST BO
UN DARY
V
A
LL
EY
R
O
A
D
LEGEND:
EXISTING BROAD-LEAF VEGETATION

MANAGED FOR CONSERVATION
EXSITING BUSHLAND MANAGED FOR

FIRE PROTECTION
EXISTING FOREST MANAGED FOR

PRESERVATION
INFORMAL FOREST RESERVE FOR PRESERVATION

FOR PRESERVATION OF HABITAT BY T.T
LEGEND
RESERVOIR
MIN. 20,000L WATER TANK WITH OPENING,

FITTING OR COUPLING ACCEPTABLE TO TAS
FIRE SERVICE.
BUILDING PROTECTION ZONE

[20m FROM BUILDING]
RURAL PRIVATE PROPERTY FUEL MODIFIED ZONE

[50m FROM BUILDING]
RIPARIAN RESERVE
FOR PRESERV A TION OF HABIT T AT
EX ISTIN G B USHLA N D
M A N A GED FOR FIRE PROT EC T ION
EX ISTIN G FOREST
M A N A GED FOR PRE S ERVAT ION
V
A
LL
EY
PA SSIN G B A Y
R
O
A
D
ACCESS NOTES:
PAVEMENT TYPE - ALL-WEATHER CONSTRUCTION.

2 MIN. DESIGN SPEED - 15kph
MIN. LOAD - 20 TONS [INCLUDING CULVERTS &
OTHER ROAD STRUCTURES].
2 MIN. TRAFFICABLE WIDTH -

DUAL LANE ACCESS WITH 6m CARRIAGEWAY
1 1 [INCLUDES CONSOLIDATED, FORMED, SURFACED
AND DRAINED SHOULDERS].
SINGLE LANE ACCESS WITH A 4m CARRIAGEWAY FOR
2 90m LENGTH WITHOUT TURNING AREAS OR PASSING
BAYS.
MIN. CLEARANCE - 2m ON EACH SIDE OF THE
2 CARRIAGEWAY FOR A HEIGHT OF 4m.
CURVES - MINIMUM INNER RADIOUS OF 10m.
2 DIPS - NOT MORE THAN 15 DEGREE [1 IN 3.7 OR 27%]
ENTRY OR EXIT ANGLE.
MIN. TURNING AREA - A CIRCULAR AREA WITH A MIN.
TRAFFICABLE RADIUS OF 10m [SHOULDERS, SEAL OR
OTHER CONSOLIDATED EDGES MAY BE ACCEPTABLE];
OR HAMMERHEAD ‘T’ OR ‘Y’ TURNAROUNDS WITH
MIN. 4m WIDTH & 8m LENGTH.
PASSING BAYS - WIDTH 2m, LENGTH 20m.
BUILDING
BUSHFIRE FUEL MODIFIED PROTECTION
HAZARD BUFFER ZONE ZONE
50m 20m
EN 2-05
FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN

7/11/11
Liam Dingemanse,
CB&M Group Pty Ltd
8 Broadland Drive
Launceston
TASMANIA, 7250
RE: Desktop Review of Potential for Surface Land Instability Associated with the
Proposed Fingal Tier Coal Mine
Dear Liam,
As per you request I have completed a desktop review into the potential for surface land
instability of areas associated with the proposed Fingal Tier Coal Mine. As you are aware this
review constitutes preliminary investigation prior to a more comprehensive field survey and
drilling works and is therefore limited in its findings.
The review considers elements of land instability including deep seated slope instability,
shallow debris slides and slumps, subsidence, rock falls as well as potential for surface and
subsurface erosion.
The desktop review found:
• That the development area is likely underlain by Triassic- Aged Lithic Sandstone,
Siltstone, Mudstone and Felsic tuff with some coal and basal quartz Sandstone rock
which is generally stable on moderate slopes.
• However the localised area is surrounded by active Quaternary Talus deposits,
predominantly derived from Jurassic Dolerite rocks, which have a much lower threshold
for unconditional deep seated slope stability at 7 degrees.
• No Mineral Resources Tasmania (MRT) Landslide Hazard Risk Mapping exists for this
area and a search of the MRT Library found no information on historical instability
within the development area.
• However local land instability is known in the area, particularly on steeper slopes after
prolonged heavy rainfall.
• Sedimentary units are likely to weather to produce natural soils up to approximately 2-3
meters deep in some areas which may have risks of debris sliding and slumping on
slopes if they are cleared or experience prolonged saturation. These soils may also show
dispersive trends, increasing the risk of sheet, rill, tunnel and gully erosion.
• Quaternary Talus deposit, where present, may extend several meters above consolidated
rock and are susceptible to both deep seated as well as shallow instability on slopes.
Strata- Geoscience & Environmental Pty Ltd. 17 Little Arthur Street North Hobart 7000. Ph 0413545358
• Rock falls from upslope areas are possible from both geological units identified as well
as from the higher Jurassic Dolerite rocks comprising Fingal Tier.
It is noteworthy that the development area is a former mine site and may have significant
landscape modification including but not necessarily limited to fill (spoil/tailings) overlay on
slopes, site cutting and pad development. The hydrogeology of the site may also have been
altered. Such modifications may increase the risk of land instability.
The findings of this desktop review will be validated after completion of a detailed site
investigation. A final report, including risk modelling to the Australian Geomechanics
Guidelines (2007), will be submitted at this time.
If you have any questions regarding the findings of this inspection please don’t hesitate to get in
touch.
Regards,
Sven Nielsen CPSS-2, Member Australian Geomechanics Society.

Director
Strata Geoscience and Environmental P/L
Strata- Geoscience & Environmental Pty Ltd. 17 Little Arthur Street North Hobart 7000. Ph 0413545358
Hardrock Coal Mine Pty Ltd
Report for Fingal Tier Coal
Mine
Development Application
Supporting Report
January 2012
This Report Fingal Tier Coal Mine, Fingal – Development Application Submission (“Report”):
1. has been prepared by GHD Pty Ltd (“GHD”) for Hardrock Coal Mine Pty Ltd;
2. may only be used and relied on by Hardrock Coal Mine Pty Ltd and to the extent required to
assess the Development Application by the Break O’Day Council;
3. must not be copied to, used by, or relied on by any person other than Hardrock Coal Mine Pty
Ltd and, to the extent required to assess the Development Application, Break O’Day Council
without the prior written consent of GHD;
4. may only be used for the purpose of assessing the Development Application for Fingal Tier Coal
Mine, Fingal (and must not be used for any other purpose).
GHD and its servants, employees and officers otherwise expressly disclaim responsibility to any person
other than Hardrock Coal Mine Pty Ltd and Break O’Day Council arising from or in connection with this
Report.
To the maximum extent permitted by law, all implied warranties and conditions in relation to the services
provided by GHD and the Report are excluded unless they are expressly stated to apply in this Report.
The services undertaken by GHD in connection with preparing this Report:
were limited to those specifically detailed in Section 1.1 of this Report.
The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this Report are based on assumptions made by
GHD when undertaking services and preparing the Report (“Assumptions”), including (but not limited to):
Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (DPEMP) and development plans
prepared by CBM Sustainability Group Pty Ltd (November 2011).
GHD expressly disclaims responsibility for any error in, or omission from, this Report arising from or in
connection with any of the Assumptions being incorrect.
32/16074/55711 Fingal Tier Coal Mine

Development Application Supporting Report
Contents
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose of the Report 1
1.2 Title Information 1
1.3 Project Background 1
1.4 Statutory Status 1
1.5 Report Structure 2
2. Site and Surrounds 3

2.1 Development Site 3
2.2 Neighbouring Property 3
2.3 Site Access 3
2.4 Zoning 4
2.5 Physical Characteristics of the Subject Land 4
3. Description of the Proposal 6

3.1 Proposal Overview 6
3.2 Clearance of Vegetation 7
3.3 Waste 7
3.4 Water 7
3.5 Sources of Noise 8
3.6 Hours of Operation 8
3.7 Access and Transportation 8
3.8 Construction 8
3.9 Off-site Infrastructure 9
4. Planning Scheme Controls 10

4.1 Statutory Reference 10
4.2 Status of Proposal 10
4.3 Use Classification 10
4.4 Planning Scheme Standards 10
5. Planning Scheme Assessment 12

5.1 Natural Resources Zone Standards 12
5.2 Car Parking and Access Code (Part D.14) 19
5.3 Attenuation Distances Code 21

5.4 Heritage Code 22
5.5 Signs Code 22
5.6 Wetlands and Waterways 26
5.7 Siting of Developments Code (Part D.19) 29
5.8 Subdivision and Building in Bushfire Prone Areas Code (Part D.22) 31
6. Conclusion 35

1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose of the Report

This report is prepared by GHD Pty Ltd (GHD) on behalf of Hardrock Coal Mining Pty Ltd in support of a
development application for a proposed underground coal mining operation near Fingal, in north eastern
Tasmania. The plans associated with the application were prepared by CBM Sustainability Group
(Project Ref. 25159P).
The report provides an assessment of the proposal against the relevant provisions of the Break O’Day
Planning Scheme 1996 (the ‘Scheme’).
1.2 Title Information

The development application relates to part of the land contained in Property ID 2542073 (no Certificate
of Title). The development footprint has an area of approximately 20 ha with 50 ha of vegetation
management area. The site is Crown Land and a working forest controlled by Forestry Tasmania, and
the development site is not impeded by easements, rights of way or covenants.
1.3 Project Background

The project involves the development of an underground coal mine and associated aboveground
infrastructure. It will be mining a well-researched coal deposit adjacent to the existing Duncan colliery,
which is owned and operated by Cornwall Coal Company. The project will be established over a remnant
coal mine and associated clearings and road cuttings, which was abandoned in the mid-1960s. The
project site is located adjacent to areas used for forestry activities.
1.4 Statutory Status

The Fingal Tier Coal Mining project is listed as a Level 2 activity under Schedule 2 of the Environmental
Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA). Notwithstanding environmental approvals, the
normal Development Application process applies under LUPAA and the proposal is subject to the
provisions of the Break O’Day Planning Scheme.
Pursuant to Section 25(2)(a) of EMPCA, “the Board is to conduct its assessment of the permit application
for the project in consultation with the planning authority.” As such, it is anticipated that there will be
coordination between Council’s planning assessment and the Board’s environmental assessment.
In general, it is the role of the Board to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the environmental
matters, whereas it is the role of Council to undertake an assessment of issues such as visual effects,
land use planning, non-environmental effects of infrastructure and off-site ancillary facilities,
communications interference, economic and social effects, or compliance with the Tasmanian State
Coastal Policy or the State Policy for the Protection of Agricultural Land.
This report has therefore been structured to provide an assessment against the relevant provisions of the
planning scheme and applicable State Policies. The development application is made pursuant to
Section 57 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA). The proposed use is classified
within the Natural Resource Use Class definition under the Scheme, this use class is identified as being
allowable within the Natural Resource Zone under Clause 10.3 of the Scheme.
32/16074/55711 Fingal Tier Coal Mine 1

The proposal requires Discretion in relation to the Waterways and Wetlands and the Siting of
Development Codes, and is therefore categorised as discretionary in accordance with Clause 3.3.2 of
the Scheme. The assessment within this report demonstrates that the proposed use and development is
capable of meeting the acceptable solutions and/or performance criteria which are applicable to the
development application.
1.5 Report Structure

This report has been structured to address the relevant requirements of the Scheme as well as provide a
background to the project. Section 2 of this report examines the characteristics of the existing site and
surrounding area whilst Section 3 details the proposed use and development. The relevant provisions of
the Scheme are identified in Section 4 and addressed in Section 5.

2. Site and Surrounds
2.1 Development Site

The proposed development site is located off Valley Road, approximately 5 km from the intersection with
Esk Main Road, Fingal. Cardiff Creek and three drainage lines pass through the site. The site is situated
on a substantial forestry land holding, and is identified by PID 2542273. The development site is a
discrete portion of this lot, located at the northern extent of the overall lot. The development site is
entirely located within the Natural Resources Zone of the Break O’Day Planning Scheme 1996, and all
surrounding land is also located within that Zone. The site is the former Barbers Mine (Number 1 and 2),
later known as Valley Mine, which operated during the 1950s and 1960s. The mine is currently disused.
The site has been largely unused since the 1960s except for some use for timber harvesting and
gathering of firewood. The site and landform is somewhat modified by the previous mining activity,
degraded by subsequent informal access along its formed tracks and though it has areas of good
regeneration, it also has areas of introduced weeds. The disturbed nature of the landscape through the
earlier mining activity is apparent through the remnant mining works, excavation of gullies, spoil dump,
strewn coal and implements.
2.2 Neighbouring Property

The nearest residential property adjoining the site to the north is Kooringa at 6092 Esk Main Road, Fingal
(CT101666/1). The homestead and outbuildings lies beside the Esk Main Road and the Break O’Day
River some 4 km north of the development site.
Killymoon is also located to the northeast and is mostly located in the Fingal Plain south of the Esk Main
Road. The southernmost extents of the farm occupy the lowest slopes and rough bush at the foot of the
Fingal Tier and it is there that it shares its southern most boundary with the State Forest some 2 km from
the boundary of the development site. The Killymoon homestead and outbuildings cluster some 5 km
away from the site close to the Esk Main Road on the banks of the Break O Day River. Killymoon is listed
on the Tasmanian Heritage Register.
Further east, Cullenswood similarly bounds the State forest in the foothills of the tier and has homestead
and outbuildings on the banks of the River some 10 km away from the site. Cullenswood is listed on the
Tasmanian Heritage Register.
The Township of Fingal to the west, though 6 km away, is directly on the other side of a large projection
of the Tier. Cornwall Coal’s operations at Duncan Mine are directly between the Development Site and
Fingal and the Cornwall Coal wash plant operations still closer on the eastern outskirts of town.
The location of these properties and the township of Fingal are demonstrated on the Area Plan, prepared
by CBM Sustainable Design, which accompanies this application.
2.3 Site Access

The development footprint is some 4.8 km south along Valley Road off the Esk Main Road in the vicinity
of Fingal (grid reference 587300 E and 5390300 N GDA 94). Valley Road is an important utility road
owned by Forestry Tasmania that links to a number of timber resource haul roads. It also provides for the
very limited public access as an alternative route to Mount Puzzler reserve with links to Royal George
Road and Harding’s Falls. The proponents have agreement with Forestry Tasmania to enter into a lease
for the purpose of haulage over Valley Road to the railhead just before the Esk Main Road intersection.

2.4 Zoning
The subject site and surrounding land is within the Natural Resources zone under the Break O’Day
Planning Scheme 1996.
2.5 Physical Characteristics of the Subject Land
2.5.1 Slopes and Drainage

Cardiff Creek (class 3 stream) is the main stream through the site. It has a catchment of harvested forest
and informal reserved forest which includes Smudgy Gully.
In addition to Cardiff Creek, there are three main drainage lines present.
The western drainage line is a class 4 stream and tributary to Cardiff Creek entering below the main
development area of the site. It is culverted under Valley Road at the point of the site access and is
supported by a well forested catchment between two defined bluffs of the tier.
The central drainage line is a heavily scoured and scree filled drainage line has little observable
surface flow except during larger rain events. Old mine workings have resulted in the central drain
being somewhat realigned, particularly by the spoil finger dump at Valley No. 1 mine just before it
reaches Cardiff creek.
The Eastern drainage line experiences the least flow of the site waterways, and now drains over the
top of the collapsed mine entrance to Valley No. 2.
2.5.2 Land Stability and Geology

A desktop review of surface land instability at the development site has been completed by Strata
Geoscience and Environmental. The review found that the development area is likely underlain by
Triassic-aged lithic sandstone, siltstone, mudstone and felsic tuff with some coal and basal quartz
sandstone rock which is generally stable on moderate slopes. However, the localised area is surrounded
by active quaternary talus deposits, predominantly derived from Jurassic dolerite rocks, which have a
much lower threshold for unconditional deep seated slope stability at 7 degrees.
No Mineral Resources Tasmania (MRT) Landslide Hazard Risk Mapping exists for this area and a
search of the MRT Library found no information on historical instability within the development area.
However local land instability is known in the area, particularly on steeper slopes after prolonged heavy
rainfall.
Impacts and mitigation of this potential hazard are discussed in Section 5 of this report.
2.5.3 Bushfire
The development is classified as a bushfire prone area by virtue of the Subdivision and Building in
Bushfire Prone Areas Code. Habitable buildings are defined as “a building classified in Classes 1-9 of the
Building Code of Australia and used as a dwelling or a workplace”.
A Bushfire Management Plan prepared for the project accompanies this application.

2.5.4 Vegetation and Fauna Habitat
A botanical survey of approximately 1000 m by 800 m was undertaken at the site, which encompasses
the extents of the proposed development footprint. This area is considered dry sclerophyll forest, with
the vegetation consisting of E. amygdalina forest and woodland on dolerite (DAD) and E. amygdalina
forest and woodland on sandstone (DAS), with broad-leaf scrub (SBR) in the riparian zones. Much of the
area has been disturbed by previous mining operations, which has been naturally re-vegetated with
these native species and introduced species, including Cirsium vulgare (spear thistle), Hypochoeris
radicata (rough catsear), Agrostis capillaris (bentgrass) and Anagallis arvensis (common pimpernel).
No threatened species were recorded during the field survey, and threatened species identified within 5
km of the study area through the Natural Values Atlas were considered unlikely to occur within the study
area as there was determined to be little suitable habitat.
A fauna habitat assessment was undertaken as part of the botanical survey. The following fauna was
recorded in the study area:
Forest raven (Corvus tasmanicus)
Laughing kookaburra (Dacelo novaeguineae)
Tasmanian thornbill (Acanthiza ewingii)
Grey fantail (Rhipidura fuliginosa subsp. albiscapa)
Tasmanian scrubwren (Sericornis humilis)
Wattlebird (Anthochaera sp.)
Green rosella (Platycercus caledonicus)
Black currawong (Strepera fuliginosa)
There was also evidence of wombat (Vombatus ursinus), possum (Trichosurus vulpecular) and common
froglet (Crinia signifera) habitat in the study area. The study site contains potential habitat for bird and
mammal species. Various hollow bearing trees and dead stags were identified as suitable nesting habitat
for arboreal mammals and birds (as shown on drawing EN2-02).
No permits are required.
As demonstrated in the DPEPM, a number of commitments have been made in relation to the protection
of Wedge Tailed Eagles (WTE), the nests of which have been identified in the area. These commitments
are to:
Formalise agreement with Forestry Tasmania for preservation of all forest that serves in mitigating
line of sight and noise disturbance to known WTE nests in proximity of development site.
Development of special values management plan for WTEs and Masked Owls for use during
construction and operation of project.
Immediately cease all construction or exploration activity within 500 m of the nest or within 1 km if in
line of sight of the nest, if a Masked Owl or WTE nest is encountered during the breeding season
(August to January inclusive), and make notification to Forestry Tasmania.

3. Description of the Proposal
3.1 Proposal Overview

The project is a proposed underground coal mine and associated infrastructure with an extraction rate of
up to 1 Mt/yr. The above-ground infrastructure will be located on the site of an existing but abandoned
coal mine dating back to the 1950s. Coal will be extracted using the traditional bord-and-pillar method,
where bords and cut-throughs are driven by underground mining equipment termed ‘continuous miners’
to form pillars. Previous exploration activity has established the coal is of sufficient quality that no
processing or washing need occur on-site. On-site activities are limited to underground coal extraction,
transfer of coal, first by shuttle car and conveyor to the surface, then by truck to the rail spur. Besides the
mining plant and infrastructure to be installed underground at the site, the following items of surface
infrastructure form part of the development proposal:
Haul road and vehicle access road, including stormwater system

Loading hardstand, including surface water catchment
Mine portal hardstand, including surface water catchment
Water improvement ponds, catchment/retention dam, and overflow energy dispersion

Water supply take-off points and supply water settling pond
Watercourse crossing culverts and hardstand area bypass culverts
These infrastructure elements will be constructed over pre-existing mine workings and access tracks and
have been designed so as to mitigate any environmental impacts. The project site and location plans,
and proposal drawings accompany this application.
HRCM holds two exploration licenses, EL16/2010 and EL17/2010, and is in the process of gaining a
mining lease for these licences. The EL16/2010 exploration area surrounds the existing Cornwall Coal
Duncan mine to the east, south and west, and has been selected for the establishment of the mine. The
exploration licence areas were explored for coal (including mapping and diamond drilling) by the
Tasmanian Mines Department from the late 1950s through to the early 1980s and by the Tasmanian
Hydro Electric Commission in the early 1960s. This drilling tested for extension of the coal seam then
being mined underground in the adjacent Duncan Colliery. As a result, both it and other coal seams were
found to extend into the project area.
A conceptual mine plan has been developed for the project, detailing a proposed initial mining Hardrock
Coal Mining Pty Ltd – Fingal Coal Mine DPEMP area within EL16/2010 that is adjacent to and
immediately east of mining lease PM1653, which contains the Duncan Colliery. This area is shown in
drawing C2-02. There are ten coal seams identified in the Fingal Valley, of which five are deemed to be
commercially viable to mine in the near future. The total estimated resource for these four coal seams in
the exploration licence areas is 447 Mt (Jones, 2011), of which 23 Mt is in the proposed initial mining
area.
It is proposed to adopt a conventional bord-and-pillar underground mining method, using up to three
continuous miners each capable of mining a minimum seam height of 2 metres with sufficient
clearances. Mining coal below 2 metres in thickness is considered impractical as a lower working height
complicates roof bolt support installation, particularly if 1.8 metre bolts are used.

Lower roadway clearances also inhibit the safe passage of people and equipment. An advantage of
continuous miner operation is its flexibility which allows the direction of mining to be readily altered and
equipment relocated if geotechnical conditions demand. The mining strategy is premised upon driving
development headings in coal and providing roof support as the face advances through the use of roof
bolting units mounted on the continuous miner. Coal is cut by the continuous miner and loaded on to
electric shuttle cars for transport to a breaker/feeder or boot-end situated at the end of a conveyor belt.
Coal is then transported to the surface along a succession of conveyor belts that are periodically
advanced with the mine development. Exploration work is continuing in the form of a further 5-hole
drilling program, an aerial sonar scan, and minor adit excavation. These will assist in current and future
mine planning.
3.2 Clearance of Vegetation

The development site is located over existing mine workings, therefore minimal vegetation will be
required to be cleared, and that is limited to constructed roadways, hardstand areas and built
infrastructure. Other vegetation will be retained as buffers for conservation, aesthetics and line-of-sight
mitigation from the Esk Highway. It will be managed for fire protection as outlined in Section 0. The total
vegetation clearance is expected to be 3 to 4 ha, consisting predominantly of E. amygdalina forest and
woodland on dolerite (DAS), with smaller areas of riparian broad-leaf scrub (SBR) and E. amygdalina
forest and woodland on sandstone (DAS).
Broad-leaf scrub clearance is proposed in some areas of natural revegetation that are considered to be
degraded following previous site degradation. The E. amygdalina forest and woodland on sandstone is a
threatened community however, its clearance will be minimal as most lies to the east of the development
footprint.
3.3 Waste
During the mine operation there will be minimal waste interburden rock, and the coal is of sufficient
quality that all extracted material is transported off-site without any processing or washing onsite.
Contracts will be established for the removal of the waste generated during the ongoing operation of the
mine, including general refuse, industrial waste, sludge from the water improvement ponds and grease
from interceptor traps. A suitably qualified waste removal contractor will be responsible for the removal
and disposal of these wastes in accordance with their environmental management systems and permits.
3.4 Water
Natural drainage systems including Cardiff Creek are crossed via culverts. Smaller overland flow lines
are directed though the site by throughput pipes or bypass table drains such that all natural flows pass
without interruption to the natural systems. Potable water is sourced from streams and can be
supplemented by trucked water if required. Appropriate storage and treatment is provided. Waste water
is treated via a packaged treatment system, and dispersed to irrigation and/or retained for conditioning.
Stormwater from hardstand areas and access roads is drained via swales and culverts through a first-
flush system to the water improvement system. Inflow of ground water into the mine is used either as
utility water at source, or isolated, collected and pumped to the surface. Generally water is of high quality
and thus retained for use or discharge. In the unlikely case that low quality groundwater is encountered it
will be improved before being retained for reuse or discharge.

3.5 Sources of Noise
Given that all extracting mining is underground, the main sources of noise are the surface conveyor that
transports coal from the portal to the hopper, and the trucks that haul coal from the site to the rail spur.
Production capacity is determined by the underground mine establishment timeframe and the number of
continuous miners in operation. It is expected that full production will be achieved within 12 months from
commencement of operations. Capacity will be 150 kt/year during mine development, after which a
continuous miner unit will be deployed to extracting coal from the pillars left by development. This unit
will produce at a much greater rate than that which occurs in development.
3.6 Hours of Operation

The mine is expected to operate continuously for 5 days per week (24 hours) from 11 pm on Sunday
night to 11 pm on Friday night. There are to be three shifts of 8.5 hours per day. Scheduled maintenance
and servicing is to occur during the weekends.
3.7 Access and Transportation

A traffic impact assessment has been prepared for this project. Access to the site is from Valley Road, an
unsealed Class 3 (minor) road owned by Forestry Tasmania. Valley Road has an open speed limit, but
actual driving speed is limited by its winding alignment, lack of shoulders and the fact that it is not sealed.
Valley Road is connected to Esk Main Road, which is a major access route to Fingal, St Marys and the
east coast. Esk Main Road is a category 3 road under the Tasmanian State Road Hierarchy, and is a
two-way, two lane road with a posted speed limit of 100 km/h. Approximately 1 km of roadway will be
constructed to provide access to the site to Valley Road. It will follow existing tracks constructed during
previous mining activity on the site. Initially coal will be hauled by truck from the mine site to a stockpile
off Valley Road. No trucks will use the Valley Road/Esk Main Road intersection during haulage, as the
stockpile is located south of the Esk Main Road. Truck haulage will occur 12 hours a day, 7 days per
week. Four or five 40-tonne truck-trailer units will be required. Initially there will be up to 35 movements
per day, increasing to about 70 when mine output reaches 1 Mt/year. Coal will be transported from the
Valley Road rail loading facility to Bell Bay wharf by train. The rail loading facility will be the subject of a
separate development application process by TasRail and is not included in this DPEMP. There will be
up to 50 staff on site during the ongoing operation of the mine. It is expected that most will drive to and
from the site each day.
3.8 Construction
The development site has been disturbed by historical mining activities. Accordingly the aboveground
impacts of the proposed development are minimised by re-using existing tracks and disturbed areas, and
by minimising the development footprint by means of good site layout. It is intended that construction
activities will commence within 3 months of the project receiving all statutory approvals, and will occur for
approximately 6 months. It will involve the following works:
Road works including hardstand areas
Culverts and creek diversion
Water improvement system incorporating settling ponds
2 ML catchment dam
Water supply and distribution

Packaged waste water treatment plant
HV Electricity supply, including substation and transformer
Electrical services and reticulation
Construction of mine portal
Construction of loading hopper
Construction of fixed conveyors
Construction of ventilation system
Construction of workshop and staff amenities building
Construction of administration building
The proposed layout of the site is detailed in drawing C2-02.
Construction works will be undertaken in accordance with detailed engineering and construction
drawings and specifications that are being developed by CBM Sustainable Design Pty Ltd and/or their
specialist sub-consultants. They will be carried out by competent construction contractors and specialist
installers in accordance with the construction Safety and Environmental Management Plan (SEMP),
which will be developed in accordance with AS 4801 and ISO 14001.
Specific measures will be introduced into the SEMP to ensure that introduced plant species and weeds,
including P. cinnamomi, will not be tracked into, or around, the site by vehicular or human traffic. Specific
measures will also be introduced into the SEMP to prevent the erosion and the transport of sediment and
to protect existing streams and creeks from unplanned construction impacts.
3.9 Off-site Infrastructure

The proponent has entered into negotiations and/or agreements for the provision of off-site ancillary
facilities to support the proposed development as detailed below.
3.9.1 Road
A lease agreement will be entered into with Forestry Tasmania for access and maintenance of Valley
Road from the development site to a location south of the Esk Highway.
3.9.2 Rail
An agreement will be entered into with TasRail for the provision of logistics, handling and transport of
coal. This includes a rail loading facility in a location south of the Esk Highway, Fingal. This is the subject
of a separate development approval process to be undertaken by TasRail.
3.9.3 Port
A lease agreement will be entered into with TasPorts for the provision of stockpiling, berthing and ship
loading facilities in Bell Bay. This will be the subject of a separate development approval process to be
undertaken by TasPorts.
3.9.4 Electricity Connection and Supply

An agreement will be entered into with Aurora and/or Transend for the distribution network connection
and energy retail to the development site.

4. Planning Scheme Controls
4.1 Statutory Reference

The site is subject to the provisions of the Break O’Day Planning Scheme 1996 (the ‘Scheme’). It is
situated within the Natural Resources zone.
4.2 Status of Proposal

The planning assessment in Section 5 indicates that the Development Application is generally in
compliance with the Acceptable Solutions under the Zone and Codes which are applicable to the
proposed use and development. However, the proposal requires Discretion in relation to the Waterways
and Wetlands and the Siting of Development Codes, and is therefore categorised as discretionary in
accordance with Clause 3.3.2 of the Scheme.
4.3 Use Classification

The proposed use is classified as part of the Resource Development use class, which is defined under
Clause 5.3.3. of the Scheme as:
Use of land for primary production which involves the use of land for planting, growing, harvesting,
processing or extraction, of natural resources.
It includes but is not necessarily limited to:
farming, commercial forestry, marine farming, extraction of rocks and minerals and/or the processing
of these products. It includes buildings and works directly associated with these uses.
Resource Development is an allowable use within the Natural Resources zone.
4.4 Planning Scheme Standards

Clause 3.2.3 of the Scheme indicates that an application for use or development must demonstrate that it
can achieve all relevant planning scheme standards. Relevant standards for the proposed use and
development are contained under the Natural Resources Zone provisions and the applicable Codes.
There are two types of standards under the Scheme, defined as follows under Clause 3.2 of the Scheme:
a) Acceptable Solutions -
Those matters set out in the scheme standards which:
a. are objectively verifiable measures; or

b. are, in the judgement of Council, based on the advice of a person professionally qualified in
town planning, verifiable means of meeting the corresponding objective.
b) Performance Criteria –
Those matters set out in the scheme standards which are subjectively verifiable criteria used to
assess performance against the corresponding objective.
3.2.2 Where performance criteria are not stated for any issue referred to in a standard, use or
development must comply with acceptable solutions for that issue.

Under Clause 3.3 of the Scheme, the status of use or development is as follows:
a) A use or development is discretionary and subject to s.57 of the Act, if it relies wholly or partly on the
use of performance criteria applicable to that use or development;
i. Council may approve or refuse a discretionary use or development, and where approved, may
impose conditions or restrictions on the permit consistent with the achievement of any relevant
performance criteria.
4.4.1 Natural Resources Zone

The standards under the Zone are addressed in Section 5.1 of this report.
4.4.2 Applicable Codes

Codes generally set out objectives and standards for matters or issues that are applicable in more than
one zoning under the Scheme. The applicability of the codes that are listed under Clause 10.4.2 of the
Scheme in relation to the Natural Resources zone is as follows:
Industrial Development Code (Part D.13) – Not applicable as the proposal is not classified as
industrial development for the purposes of this Code.
Car Parking and Access Code (Part D.14) – Applicable (refer to assessment in Section 0).
Standard Attenuation Distances Code (Part D.15) – Not applicable as the development site is not
within close proximity to the activities listed in Table 15.2 of the Scheme.
Heritage Code (Part D.16) – Not applicable as the subject site is not included in Table 16.1 of the
Scheme (refer to Section 5.4).
Signs Code (Part D.17) – Applicable (refer to assessment in Section 5.5).
Wetlands and Waterways Code (Part D.18) – Applicable as works are proposed within 30 metres of
Cardiff Creek and other unnamed drainage channels (refer to assessment in Section 0).
Siting of Developments Code (Part D.19) – Applicable as the proposal is located in an
environmentally sensitive areas on the basis that it may form part of the habitat of any threatened
species (refer to assessment in Section 5.7).
Road Asset Code (Part D.20) – Not applicable as the proposal will not result on any detrimental
impact on the safety or efficiency of the existing road network.
Residential Development Code (Part D.21) – Not applicable to this proposal as residential
development is not proposed.
Subdivision and Building in Bushfire Prone Areas Code (Part D.22) – Applicable (refer to assessment
in Section 5).

5. Planning Scheme Assessment
The proposal is assessed against the relevant provisions of the Scheme as follows.
5.1 Natural Resources Zone Standards

Issue 1 – Subdivision of Land
Objective – To ensure that subdivision of land does not result in the fragmentation of prime agricultural
land or a use or development that would fetter the operation of an existing or future resource
development.
Acceptable Solution/Performance Criteria Planning Assessment
AS1.1 Allowable Subdivision Not applicable as the proposal does not involve
(a) The lot is required for the operation or the subdivision of land.
establishment of a use or development in the Complies with Acceptable Solution
resource development use class and has a
minimum frontage to a built public road of 6
meters.
AS1.2 Lot Size Not applicable as the proposal does not involve
(a) No subdivision except as provided under the subdivision of land, nor does the proposal
clause 1.8 Adjustment of title boundaries. constitute a boundary adjustment under Clause
1.8.
PC 1.2 Lot Size
Complies with Performance Criteria
a) A lot greater than 40 ha: or b) For a lot of less
than 40 hectares the development application
is to demonstrate that 40 hectares is
excessive for the proposed use or
development of the lot and a detailed farm
plan and implementation program setting out
details of the farm operation together with an
assessment, by a suitably qualified person, of
the sustainability of the farm operation for all
parts of the land is required to be submitted
with the application. The farm plan is to
demonstrate how environmental constraints
and natural hazards associated with the land
will be managed and how landscape features
will be protected.
AS1.3 Subdivision in other use classes Not applicable as the proposal does not involve
(a) Subdivision is not allowed for use or the subdivision of land.
development in the residential or utilities or Complies with Acceptable Solution
business and civic or environmental
management or recreation use classes.

AS1.4 Effect of subdivision on use Not applicable as the proposal does not involve
(a) Any lot created by subdivision is not to the subdivision of land. The proposal is
provide development which will in any way consistent with forestry activities occurring on
restrain or hinder the use of land for lawful adjacent land.
purposes on adjoining lots. Complies with Acceptable Solution
AS1.5 Subdivision of Prime Agricultural Land The proposal does not involve the subdivision of
(a) Subdivision of prime agricultural land is not prime agricultural land. This is further detailed
allowed. under Issue 3.
Complies with Acceptable Solution
AS1.6 Subdivision of land parcels Not applicable as the proposal does not involve
(a) A proposal which incorporates subdivision the subdivision of land.
must be prepared for the whole parcel of land Complies with Acceptable Solution
existing at the time of the application.
AS1.7 Lots created for building purposes Not applicable as the proposal does not involve
(a) Any lot created for building purposes must be the subdivision of land.
of sufficient size to allow for the on-site Complies with Acceptable Solution
disposal of any wastes, unless arrangements
are in place for disposal to a system licensed
by DPIWE.
AS1.8 Adjustment of Title boundaries Not applicable as the proposal does not involve
(a) Adjustment of the title boundaries between the subdivision of land.
adjoining lots to achieve a more efficient Complies with Acceptable Solution
layout is allowed where;
the number of lots created by the sub-
division does not exceed the number of
lots existing at the time of subdivision;
all lots are to be used for the same
purposes as these existing prior to the
subdivision or to contain land subject to a
conversation covenant under the Nature
Conversation Act 2002;
no lot created by boundary adjustment
requires the provision of any additional
road, sewage, water or stormwater
capacity.
AS1.9 Obligations for land clearance Not applicable as the proposal does not involve
(a) No subdivision is to create an obligation to the subdivision of land.
clear land for fire management or access Complies with Acceptable Solution
purposes on any land outside the area to be
subdivided.

Issue 2 – Strata Schemes
Objective – To ensure that division of land by strata does not result in the fragmentation of the land
resource.
This development standard is not applicable since the application does not involve strata subdivision.
Issue 3 – Development on Agricultural Land

Objective – To ensure that use or development does not reduce the productive capacity of agricultural
land to be used for agriculture and associated activities.
AS 3.1 Development of agricultural land The Land Information Systems Tasmania (LIST)
indicates that the property is located in the
(a) All proposals for use or development in the
vicinity of a combination of Class 5 and 6 land.
natural resources zone must identify the class
or classes of land to be used for use or
development in accordance with the Land
Capability Classes as shown in Land
Capability Survey of Tasmania, 1:100,000
map, and as described in the accompanying
report Land Capability Survey of Tasmania,
Report.
(b) Non-agricultural land use or development is The development site is surrounded by Class 5
not to unreasonably fetter agricultural uses on and 6 land, however this is located a substantial
adjoining land. distance from the development footprint.
The proposed use is appropriately setback and is
consistent with the surrounding forestry
operations.
(c ) Land identified as prime agricultural land The subject site and wider property does not
under Clause 3.1(a) is not to be used or contain land identified as being prime agricultural
developed for non-agricultural purposes. land.
Issue 4 – Forestry Operations

Objective – To ensure Council’s involvement in where and how timber harvesting occurs, having regard
to the adequacy of road infrastructure, impacts on water supply catchments and the water quality
function of rivers and visibility of scenic ridgelines from important tourist routes.
This development standard is not applicable since the proposal does not involve Forestry Operations.

Issue 5 – The Conduct of Mineral Exploration and Mining
Objective – To ensure that the operation of Extractive Industries is carried out with minimal impact on
the environment.
AS 5.1 Mineral exploration, mining and The proposal is assessed against D.18 in Section
quarrying 5.6 of this report.
a) Extractive Industries which result in the Complies with Performance Criteria in Part
removal of vegetation or disturbance to the D.18
ground surface are to comply with acceptable
solutions as set out in Part D.18 – Wetlands
and Waterways Code.
b) Extractive Industries are to comply with the The mining activities will be compliant with the
acceptable standards of the Quarry Code of Quarry Code of Practice 1999.
Practice 1999, jointly published by the
Department of Primary Industries, Water and
Environment and Mineral Resources Division
Department of Infrastructure Energy and
Resources.
Issue 6 – Tourism Development

Objective – To ensure that the development of tourist facilities enhances and supports the tourism
resources of the Municipality.
This development standard is not applicable since the application does not involve tourism facilities.
Issue 7 – Residential Use or Development

Objective – To ensure that residential use or development does not convert agricultural land or fetter
agricultural use or other resource development uses within the zone.
This development standard is not applicable since the application does not involve residential use or
development.
Issue 8 – Development in Areas at Risk from Natural Hazards

Objective – To ensure that natural hazards are identified and addressed at the time of development.
The description of the physical characteristics of the site (Section 2.5) indicates that the site is potentially
subject to natural hazards, including land instability or bushfire in particular.

AS 8.1 Mitigation of Hazard Risk (a) As detailed in the Section 2.5 of this report,
there are no MRT Landslide Hazard Risk
(a) A site analysis indicates that there is a flood
Mapping available for this area and a search
or land instability hazard and the level of risk
of the MRT Library found no information on
from that identified hazard.
historical instability within the development
(b) No development is to occur on any part of the area. The potential of land instability has
site which is identified in the site analysis as been addressed in the DPEMP.
having a high risk of flooding, including a high
(b) No part of the site has been identified as
risk from inundation from coastal storm tide or
having a high risk of flooding.
sea level rise.
(c) The proposal is assessed against the
(c) In a bushfire prone area as defined in
provisions of the Bushfire Areas Code in
Schedule 1, use or development is to satisfy
Section 5.9 of this report.
the provisions of Part 22 Bushfire Areas code.
(d) The site is not located within a declared
(d) In a declared landslip area, development
landslip area.
must comply with Part 10 of the Building Act
2000 and the regulations under the act. (e) All works associated with the development
will be contained within the development site.
(e) All works associated with the mitigation of
hazard risk are to be carried out within the Complies with Acceptable Solutions
boundaries of the development site.
Issue 9 – Vegetation Protection

Objective – To ensure that natural drainage functions and botanical, zoological and landscape values of
rivers and streams is protected by the retention of native vegetation.
AS 9.1 Protection of vegetation in catchments The proposal is assessed against the Wetlands
and Waterways Code in Section 5.6 of this
(a) The catchments of rivers, wetlands and
report.
waterways are to be protected though
maintenance of riparian vegetation by Complies with Performance Criteria in Part
compliance with Acceptable Solution as set D.18
out in Part D.18 of the Planning scheme
Wetlands and Waterways Code.

Issue 10 – Land Clearance
Objective – To ensure clearing of vegetation occurs only where it is required as an integral part of an
approved use and development and is carried out in such a way as to have minimal impact.
AS 9.1 Clearing of land for use or (a) The proposal involves minimal clearance of
development vegetation, and is restricted to that which is
required to construct roadways, hardstand
(a) Land clearance is allowed where it is: i) in
areas and built infrastructure. Other
accordance with an approved Plan for Use or
vegetation will be retained as buffers for
Development of land and buildings under
conservation, aesthetics and line-of-sight
clause 4.10.2 of the scheme; or ii) required in
mitigation from the Esk Highway, and will be
accordance with an approved management
managed for fire protection.
plan under the National Parks and Reserves
Management Act 2002; or Crown Lands Act Broad-leaf scrub clearance is proposed in
1976 or iii) in accordance with fire some areas of natural revegetation that are
management works approved as part of a considered to be degraded following
permit created under clause 4.5.1(a); previous site degradation.
(b) Use or development is not to create an As demonstrated on the attached Flora and
obligation to clear land for hazard reduction Fauna drawing (EN2-02), DAS is located
purposes on any land outside the outside the development area, therefore no
development site. clearing of this vegetation is required.
(b) There is no obligation to clear land outside
the development site.
Issue 11 – Road Access and Setbacks

Objective – To ensure the road safety and amenity of the road infrastructure is protected and maintained
by controlling access arrangements and requiring setbacks for new buildings.
AS 11.1 Maintenance of Road Safety The proposed development complies with the
Standards Acceptable Solutions set out in the Road Asset
Code (Part D.20).
a) Use or development is to comply with the
acceptable solutions as set out in Part D.20, Complies with Acceptable Solution
Road Asset Code.
Issue 12 – Pollution and Waste Disposal

Objective – To protect the quality of receiving waters from point sources of pollution.

This development standard is not applicable since the proposal does not involve discharge of pollutants
to surface or ground water. Wastewater management is discussed in further detail in Section 3.4 of this
report.
Issue 13 – Infrastructure Provision
Objective – To ensure that the cost of providing additional infrastructure to new development is not
borne by the community.
AS 13.1 Payment for infrastructure (a) The developer will be responsible for all
infrastructure costs required by the proposed
a) All infrastructure required for a use or
development.
development is to be paid for and provided by
the person undertaking the use or (b) Trucks will utilise Valley Road and the Esk
development Highway, however transport to the site will
also be achieved via the rail (subject to a
b) Where use or development requires the use
subsequent DA) therefore the proposal is not
of Council roads by heavy vehicles, a
anticipated to result in the degradation of
contribution in accordance with Council’s
Council roads.
requirements is to be made, by the person
undertaking the use or development, to the A commitment was made in the DPEMP to
upkeep and maintenance of those roads. upgrade Valley Road between the Esk Highway
intersection and the proposed development site
incorporating passing bays, and regular
maintenance.
Issue 14 – Attenuation Distances – Separation of Incompatible Use or Development

Objective – To ensure that potentially incompatible use or development is separated by distance
sufficient to ameliorate any diverse effects.
This development standard is not applicable since the development site is not within close proximity to
the activities listed in Table 15.2 of the Scheme. The provisions of the Standard Attenuation Distances
Code (Part D.15) are also not applicable to the Development Application on this basis.

5.2 Car Parking and Access Code (Part D.14)
Issue 1 – Car Parking Provision
Objective – To provide sufficient conveniently located and accessible parking for people utilising or
servicing a use or development.
AS 1.1 Level of parking provision It is noted that the Part 4 does not specify car
parking requirements for the Resource
a) The number and dimensions of parking
Development Use. The proposal will utilise the
spaces to be provided on the development
existing access to the site, and any new access
site for any use or development to meet the
arrangements will be designed according to
requirements set out in Table 14.2.
Australian Standards.
Where the use or development is for more
27 car parking spaces are provided. The majority
than one activity and those activities operate
of the employees will be ferried to site by minibus
at the same time, the minimum number of
at the start and end of each shift from Fingal
parking spaces to be provided is not to be less
and/or future rail head, mitigating the need for a
than the sum of the requirements for each
large car park.
use.
Where there is a change in use, the additional
parking requirement is the difference between
requirements for the proposed use and the
existing number of car parking spaces on the
land.
1.2 Payment of cash in lieu of parking provision
a) In the commercial zone, council may accept a

cash payment in lieu of the provision of car
parking spaces.
b) Cash in lieu is to be paid at the rate of

number of deficient car parking spaces x the This Acceptable Solution is not applicable since a
cost of providing a car parking space in that variation to the parking requirement is not sought.
location. Complies with Acceptable Solution

Issue 2 – Car Parking Access and Design
Objective – To ensure that car parking spaces are designed and located to meet the needs for on-site
parking, access and manoeuvring of vehicles.
AS 2.1 Dimensions of parking spaces (a) The Site Plan indicates that the parking
spaces will have minimum dimensions of 5.5
a) Car parking spaces are to have:
m x 2.6 m.
i) minimum dimensions of 5.5 metres x 2.6
(b) The access driveway will be designed in
metres.
accordance with the requirements of Tables
ii) where parking is located adjacent to a 14.3 and 14.4. Table 14.3 requires a
driveway, the dimensions of the driveway minimum width of 6.7 m adjacent to the
are set out in Table 14.3. proposed 90° parking spaces. This will allow
iii) access and driveways are to be designed vehicles to manoeuvre into and out of the
to enable vehicles to enter a designated parking spaces in accordance with
parking space in a single turning Acceptable Solution 2.1(a)(iii).
movement, and leave the space in no This is addressed in further detail in the Traffic
more than two turning movements. Impact Assessment.
AS 2.2 Drainage As outlined in the DPEMP, stormwater from

hardstand areas and access roads will be
a) Open car parking spaces are to be drained to
drained via swales and culverts through a first-
Council’s stormwater drainage system and
flush system to the water improvement system.
surfaced to provide for stormwater infiltration.
Inflow of ground water into the mine is used
either as utility water at source, or isolated,
collected and pumped to the surface.
Generally water is of high quality and thus
retained for use or discharge. In the unlikely case
that low quality groundwater is encountered it will
be improved before being retained for reuse or
discharge.
AS 2.3 Connections with main roads Not applicable to this proposal.

a) Where a driveway connects to a road carrying Complies with Acceptable Solution
more than 3000 vehicles per day, forward
egress to that road from parking areas is to be
provided.
AS 2.4 Driveways and accesses The access will be designed in accordance with
the requirements of Tables 14.3 and 14.4.
a) Minimum driveway widths are to be as set out
in Table 14.4. Complies with Acceptable Solution

b) Accesses are to be located not closer than 6 The proposed vehicular access location to Valley
metres from an intersection, nor within 6 Road complies with this requirement.
metres of a break in a median strip.
c) Accesses are to be located on the road with This Acceptable Solution is not applicable since
the lowest traffic volume where the land fronts the land does not front more than one road.
on to more than one road.
d) Vehicles crossover to be designed to meet It is anticipated that Council’s permit conditions

Council standards. will specify the construction standards which are
required.
e) Where access to parking is to be provided The application complies with the Acceptable
from roads outside the general urban speed Solutions in the Road Asset Code (Part D.20).
limit that access is to be in accordance with Complies with Acceptable Solution
acceptable solutions in Part D.20, Road Asset
Code.
f) All accesses, private roadways and carports All roadways run along site contours ensuring
are to be constructed on slopes of <1:10. that all are on slopes of < 1:10. This is
demonstrated in drawing C3-01.
g) The layout of the development site is to allow The response above in relation to Acceptable
vehicles of a size normally associated with the Solution 2.1(a)(iii) demonstrates compliance with
use of the development site to enter and leave Acceptable Solution 2.4(g).
the development site whilst moving in a
forward direction for:
1. a residential use that requires four or more
parking spaces; or
2. any other use of land that requires three or
more parking spaces.
AS 2.5 Parking for persons with disabilities As demonstrated in the Traffic Impact
a) Disabled car parking is to be provided in Assessment, sufficient provision is made for
accordance with AS 2890.1 (1993). persons with disabilities, and car parking is
provided in accordance with AS 2890.1 (1993).
5.3 Attenuation Distances Code

The Standard Attenuation Distances Code (Part D.15) is not applicable to this development as the
development footprint is not located within close proximity to the activities listed in Table 15.2 of the
Scheme. The township of Fingal is located approximately 6 km to the east of the site.

5.4 Heritage Code
The Heritage Code is not applicable to this development as the subject site is not included in Table 16.1
of the Scheme. As demonstrated in the Heritage Assessment undertaken by GHD, Killymoon and
Cullenswood (including Church of Christ and graveyard), located in the vicinity of the site, are both
included on the scheme list, and Harefield is located adjacent to the forestry lot, however these places
are located a substantial distance from the development site and no impacts to these places are
anticipated.
A commitment was made in the DPEMP to develop a heritage management plan to manage the removal
of any European heritage items, as well as to manage any Aboriginal site or relic discovery in
accordance with the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975.
5.5 Signs Code

Issue 1 – Siting and Design of Commercial Signs
Objective – To allow identification, business advertising and information to be conveyed on signs that do
not detract from the overall appearance of the area in which they are erected. – To ensure there is equal
access to limited advertising space and that the number and positioning of signs does not affect the
visual amenity of the locality. – To ensure that signs are in keeping with the scale and character of the
building to which they are affixed.
AS1.1 Dimensions and location of signs on As demonstrated on the Signage Plan (C6 – 01),
business sites. the proposal complies with the pole sign
dimensions contained in Figure 17.5 and 17.6.
a) Signs erected on business premises are to
have the following dimensions and locations: Complies with Acceptable Solution
i) Wall Mounted Signs – as shown in
Figure 17.1;
ii) Under Awning – as shown in Figure
17.2;
iii) Horizontal – as shown in Figure 17.3;
iv) Lantern signs – as shown in Figure
17.4;
v) Pole signs; single – as shown in Figure
17.5 double – as shown in Figure 17.6.

Issue 2 – Signs for Single Business Sites
Objective – To permit adequate identification of businesses. – To ensure that signs are in keeping with
the scale and character of the building to which they are affixed. – To reduce the visual complexity of
streetscape by providing fewer, more effective signs.
AS2.1 Number of signs per site (a) The proposal does not include more than
three signs per frontage.
(a) No more than three signs per frontage.
(b) No signs are proposed in the forecourt.
(b) Forecourt – one freestanding pole sign.
(c) Not applicable to this proposal as the façade
(c) Road level facade - total of 2 signs in the
is not visible from the road.
following locations;
(d) No upper level signs are proposed.
i) awning fascia;
ii) one projecting sign; (e) The proposal does not include illuminated
signs.
iii) above door head/display window;
iv) piers;
v) below window sill,; or
vi) on the window glass or the masonry
beside a door.
(d) Upper level signs:
i) 1 wall or projecting vertical;
ii) parapet signs
(e) No more than two signs to be illuminated.
Issue 3 – Industrial Sites

Objective – To permit adequate identification of industrial premises. – To improve the appearance of
industrial areas and buildings through the design and placement of signs.
This development standard is not applicable as the proposal does not involve signage on industrial sites.
Issue 4 – Signs for Residential Use or Development

Objective – To preserve residential amenity. – To minimise the visual impact of signs. – To ensure that
signs for non-residential uses do not interfere with residential amenity.
This development standard is not applicable as the proposal does not involve signs for residential use or
development.
Issue 5 – Other Signs

Objective – To ensure that temporary and "attention getting" signs do not adversely affect visual
amenity, or become permanent features.
This development standard is not applicable as the proposal does not include bunting, posters or
temporary signs.

Issue 6 – Road and Public Safety
Objective – To ensure that signs do not compromise road or public safety.
AS6.1 Signs and road and pedestrian safety (a) Two signs are proposed on Valley Road to
indicate the two accesses to the site (‘Haul
a) Signs are not to be placed so as to impede or
Road’ and ‘Main Access’). These signs will
cause obstruction to the free flow of vehicular
not impede the free flow of vehicular traffic
or pedestrian traffic
on Valley Road.
b) No sign is to cause visual obstruction to
(b) The signs do not cause visual obstructions.
vehicle drivers or traffic in a road reservation,
of vehicle access ways, statutory signs or (c) Signs proposed will be structurally sound and
pedestrian crossings will not be hazardous to users of the roads.
c) Signs must be structurally sound and not in (d) The signs do not obstruct any statutory road
any way hazardous or potentially hazardous signs, and are not located in the road
to users of roads and public areas reservation.
d) Signs advertising products, facilities and (e) Signs will not use colours or design
events are not to obstruct statutory road signs principles that can be confused with
or be located in the road reservation of any statutory/directional signs of public
public highway or street, unless they are in authorities.
accordance with acceptable solutions in part
(f) Signage is not proposed within the road
7 or part 8 of Table 17.1
reservation.
(e) Advertising signs are not to use colours and
design principles currently incorporated into
statutory or directional signs erected by public
authorities.
(f) An application for a sign in a road reservation
must be accompanied by the written consent
of the Road Authority for that sign and comply
with any conditions imposed by the Road
Authority.
Issue 7 – Roadside signs outside 80 KPH limit

Objective – To ensure that roadside signs outside urban areas do not proliferate and do not detract from
visual amenity or compromise road safety.
This development standard is not applicable as the proposal does not include roadside signs outside 80
KPH limit.
Issue 8 – Roadside Signs in Urban Areas
Objective – To ensure that roadside signs in urban areas do not proliferate and do not detract from
streetscapes or compromise road safety.

8.1 Location of signs visible to the public All signs are proposed to be erected within the
curtilage of the site to which the sign relates, and
a) The only signs to be allowed in public road
the signs are directly related to the operation of
reservations within speed limit zones of 80
the site.
kph or less are:
No signs are proposed in the public road
i) directional signs;
reservation.
ii) street signs;
iii) road safety signs;
iv) signs indicating the direction and
distance to;
v) facilities providing accommodation and
or meals for travellers, or
vi) commercial visitor attractions, or
- town or commercial centres, or
- major natural visitor attractions, or
- visitor service locations, or
- TVIN centres;
vii) signs displaying service symbols;
viii) hazard or warning signs; and
ix) any other sign erected by a road
authority to advise the travelling public of
road conditions.
b) Signs erected in road reservations are to be
in accordance with the specifications set out
in Parts A and F of the Tasmanian Roadside
Signs Manual
c) No sign may be erected which: i) is not within
the curtilage of the site to which that sign
relates, and ii) is not directly related to the
operation on that site and the goods and/or
services available there from.

5.6 Wetlands and Waterways
Issue 1 – Works on or Near Wetlands or Waterways
Objective – Works on or near wetlands and waterways are not to affect the hydrological and biological
roles of waterways and wetlands.
AS 1.1 Construction in wetlands or waterways As a Level 2 activity, a DPEMP has been

prepared to support this application, which
a) Prior to the commencement of any works in a
outlines the proposal, and extent of works in the
waterway or wetland a plan prepared in
vicinity of the waterways.
accordance with the environmental
management principles set out in Section 2 of Furthermore, a SEMP will be prepared prior to
“Waterways & Wetlands Works Manual, 2003 the commencement of construction, outlining
Department of Primary Industries, Water and measures to minimise the disturbance of
Environment and the Local Government sediment and erosion control. This plan will be
Association of Tasmania”, and which shows: prepared in accordance with the environmental
management principles set out in Section 2 of
i) proposals for minimising sediment
“Waterways & Wetlands Works Manual, 2003
disturbance and controlling erosion;
DPIWE and LGAT.
ii) proposals for avoiding pollution of the
waterway or wetland; and
iii) proposals for stabilising and
rehabilitating banks and riparian areas is
to be prepared and submitted to Council
for approval.
AS 1.2 Construction within 30 m of wetlands The proposal includes some development

located within 30 m of a waterway, and therefore
No works including dams, weirs, bridges, channel
requires assessment against Performance
training works, roads or other structures are to be
Criteria PC1.2.
constructed in or within 30 m of the outer
boundary of any wetland or waterway. Natural drainage systems including Cardiff Creek
will be crossed via culverts, and smaller overland
PC 1.2 Construction within 30 m of wetlands
flow lines are directed though the site by
Where works or all structures, are proposed throughput pipes or bypass table drains such that
within 30 metres of the outer boundary of a all natural flows pass without interruption to the
wetland or waterway it must be demonstrated natural systems.
that;
As outlined in the DPEMP, the development will
i) the design and operation of any works or be designed and operated in accordance with
structures on or near the wetland or best management practises, and is not
waterway is to be in accordance with Best anticipated to result in adverse environmental
Practice Environmental Management; and impacts on the waterways.
ii) the natural flow regimes, water quality and Complies with Performance Criteria
biological diversity of any waterway or
wetland will not be adversely affected.

Issue 2 – Riparian Vegetation
Objective - To maintain native riparian vegetation as natural filters for nutrients and soluble pollutants,
as habitats for native fauna and to prevent erosion and increased sediment flows.
AS 1.2 Native Vegetation Removal A small amount of riparian broad-leaf scrub is

proposed to be removed in some areas of natural
a) No native vegetation is to be removed either
revegetation, however as outlined in the DPEMP,
in or within 30 metres of the outer boundary
these small areas are considered to be degraded
of: i) any wetland; or ii) any waterway; or iii) a
following previous site degradation.
recharge basin.
As outlined in the DPEMP, the SEMP will outline
PC 1.2 Native Vegetation Removal
measures to ensure the removal of this
a) Where it is proposed to remove any native vegetation will not result in erosion and
vegetation, either in or within 30 metres of the sedimentation.
boundary of a wetland or waterway,
Complies with Performance Criteria
applicants are to show that such removal will
not adversely affect the capacity of the
remaining vegetation to act as natural filters
for nutrients and soluble pollutants and to
prevent erosion and increased sediment
flows. Applicants must show that proposed
vegetation removal will not result in adverse
impact on terrestrial and aquatic fauna.
AS 2.2 Maintenance of water levels The proposal involves some diversion of

waterways, however as outlined in the DPEMP,
a) No filling, draining or alteration of the natural
this will not result in increased erosion or
water level of any wetland, recharge basin or
sedimentation, or adversely affect the natural
waterway is to occur.
flows of the water ways/drainage lines or the
PC 2.2 Maintenance of water levels natural water level of the waterway.
(a) Development or works which affect the Complies with Performance Criteria
natural water level of any wetland, recharge
basin or waterway are not to adversely affect
natural flow and there is to be no increase in
erosion or sedimentation as a result of the
development or works.

Issue 3 – Water Quality
Objective – To maintain the physical and chemical quality of waterways and wetlands at a level that will
not affect their role as aquatic habitats or recreational assets.
AS 3.1 Point Source of Discharge The proposal will not result in a new point source
of discharge to the waterway, diffuse emissions
No new point source of discharge is to be
or direct discharge of stormwater into any
allowed into a waterway, recharge basin or
enclosed aquatic system. Matters of water quality
wetland.
are addressed comprehensively within the
AS 3.2 Diffuse emissions DPEMP.
a) Emissions from diffuse sources are to be As outlined in Section 3.4, stormwater from
managed through the implementation of best hardstand areas and access roads is drained via
practice environmental management so as to swales and culverts through a first-flush system
achieve the requirements of the State Policy to the water improvement system. Inflow of
on Water Quality Management 1997. ground water into the mine is used either as utility
water at source, or isolated, collected and
AS 3.3 Stormwater
pumped to the surface. Generally water is of high
a) There is to be no direct discharge of any quality and thus retained for use or discharge. In
untreated stormwater into any enclosed the unlikely case that low quality groundwater is
aquatic system, recharge basin, or system encountered it will be improved before being
with low exchange rates. retained for reuse or discharge.
Complies with Acceptable Solutions
Issue 4 – Road and Private Roadways Construction

Objective – To ensure that roads and private roadway tracks do not result in erosion, siltation or affect
water quality of wetlands and waterways.
AS 4.1 Roads and waterway crossings A lease agreement will be entered into with
Forestry Tasmania for access and maintenance
a) Roads or private roadways constructed
of the existing Valley Road from the development
parallel to a waterway are to be at least; i) 40
site to a location south of the Esk Highway.
metres from class 1 or 2 streams as defined
in the Forest Practices Code 1985. ii) 20 The proposal does not involve the construction of
metres from all other streams. new road parallel to the waterway, and all
crossings of the waterways are at right angles.
b) Waterway crossings are to be constructed in
accordance with the Environmental design A Water Management Schematic which
requirements set out in Section 5 of the illustrates crossings of waterways and outlines
“Waterways & Wetlands Works Manual, 2003 drainage lines, forms part of the application
Department of Primary Industries, Water and documentation.
Environment and the Local Government
Association of Tasmania”.

c) Waterway crossings are to be at right angles

to the waterway.
d) Drainage works at approaches to waterway

crossings, and upstream and downstream of
the waterway crossings are to be in
accordance with Part 3 of the Forest
Practices Code 1985.
e) Measures to eliminate drainage scour in road

or private roadway drainage works are to be
implemented where drainage directly flows
into a class 1, 2, 3 or 4 stream as defined in
the Forest Practices Code 1985, or directly
flows into a wetland or recharge basin.
f) Within 50 metres of a class 1, 2, 3 or 4

stream, recharge basin or any wetland,
drainage from any road or private roadway is
to be diverted into surrounding vegetation or
sediment traps and is not allowed to continue
to the stream unchecked.
AS 4.2 Bridges Not applicable as the proposal does not include

permanent bridges.
a) Permanent bridges and crossings are to be
designed to withstand the 1 in 50 year flood Complies with Acceptable Solution
level.
AS 4.3 Quarries and Borrow Pits Not applicable as the proposal does not include
quarries or borrow pits.
(a) Quarries or borrow pits are not to be
established or operated within: (i) 40 m of any Complies with Acceptable Solution
Class 1-4 stream; or (ii) 40 m from the outer
boundary of a wetland or recharge basin; or
(iii)within 100 m of the boundary of a reserve
under the Parks and Wildlife Act 1970.
5.7 Siting of Developments Code (Part D.19)

The siting of Developments Code is applicable as environmentally sensitive areas includes any land
which forms part of the habitat of a threatened species as defined in the Threatened Species Protection
Act 1995.
Issue 1 – Development on Reserved Land
Objective – To ensure that development recognises and reflects relevant values of land reserved under
the National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002 and Crown Lands Act 1976.
This development standard is not applicable since the application does not directly involve any reserved
land.

Issue 2 – Protection of Coastal and Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Objective – To ensure that development is sited in locations that do not result in adverse impacts on
cultural and natural values in coastal and environmentally sensitive areas.
As demonstrated in Section 2.5, the development site may contain threatened species habitat. As
demonstrated in the DPEMP, the development will be sited to as to avoid adverse impacts on any
threatened species listed under the Threatened Species Protection Act and Biodiversity Conservation
Act 1999.
Pursuant to Clause 2.5(a)(b) “development is to be sited so that it does not intrude into the view or vistas
of any natural or cultural feature within the boundary of a National Park or Conservation Area visible from
any tourist roads or State Reserves.”
c) Where developments are potentially visible from a tourist road or National Park, those buildings are:
i) not to protrude above the height of the vegetation or natural features in the background of the
viewfield;
ii) to use colours on external surfaces visible from the public road or National Park which have similar
tones to the surrounding vegetation and natural features; and
iii) to be designed to reflect the shape of the topography in the vicinity.
While South Esk Main Road is a tourist road, proposed development is not visible from this road. As
such, the proposal does not conflict with this provision. The site infrastructure will, however, be coloured
in tones similar to the surrounding vegetation or natural features.
Issue 3 – Development on Coastal Landforms
Objective – To ensure that development of unstable landforms does not result in degradation of those
landforms.
This development standard is not applicable since the proposed development is not situated on unstable
landforms.

Issue 4 – Provision of Infrastructure
Objective – To ensure that development is provided with adequate and appropriate infrastructure and
that the cost of providing infrastructure is not unnecessarily borne by the wider community.
AS 4.1 Waste Disposal (b) As outlined in section 3.3, a suitably qualified

waste removal contractor will be responsible
a) All development is to be connected to
for the removal and disposal of these wastes
Council’s wastewater treatment system or an
in accordance with their environmental
accredited system under the Tasmanian
management systems and permits.
Plumbing Code.
b) All solid wastes are to be removed from the
site and disposed of in a licensed waste
disposal facility.
AS 4.2 Roads Not applicable to this proposal as the application

does not relate to reserved land.
a) Within reserved land the design capacity of
new roads is to be sufficient for any likely Complies with Acceptable Solution
increase in traffic and speed controls are to be
implemented to protect native wildlife from
injury by vehicles.
AS 4.3 Walking paths Not applicable as the application does not involve
the construction of walking paths apart from
a) Construction of footpaths and trials are to be
those within the cartilage of the building.
in accordance with the relevant Australian
Standard. Complies with Acceptable Solution
AS 4.4 Paying for infrastructure The developer will be responsible for all costs
incurred by the proposed development.
a) All infrastructure required for a use or
development is to be paid for and provided by Complies with Acceptable Solution
the person undertaking the use or
development.
5.8 Subdivision and Building in Bushfire Prone Areas Code (Part D.22)
Objective – It is the intent of the code to set the standards to be implemented to reduce bushfire risks for
subdivisions and habitable buildings.
Habitable buildings are defined as “a building classified in Classes 1-9 of the Building Code of Australia
and used as a dwelling or a workplace”. The Subdivision and Building in Bushfire Prone Areas Code is
therefore applicable to this proposal.

Issue 1 – Subdivision in Bushfire Prone Areas
Objective – To ensure that the subdivisions are designed to be capable of having appropriate bushfire
protection measures for future developments.
Issue 1 is not applicable as the proposal does not constitute subdivision for the purpose of the Scheme.
Issue 2– Access in Bushfire Prone Areas

Objective – Access must be designed to provide for safe access for emergency and other vehicles.
AS 2.1 Access Standards (a) A Bushfire Management Plan accompanies

this application demonstrating the access
a) Access conforming with Table 22.3 must be
complies with Table 22.3.
provided from a non-bushfire prone area to
within 30 metres of a building or building (b) As demonstrated on the Site Plan and
envelope (measured to the furthest part of the detailed in the Traffic Impact Assessment,
building or envelope as a hose lay along the accesses have been designed to provide for safe
ground). access for emergency and other vehicles.
b) Access must be suitable for use by two wheel A Bushfire Management Plan demonstrating
drive vehicles. compliance with the acceptable solutions
accompanies this application.
PC 2.1 Access Standards
a) A combination of access and other bushfire
protection measures as advised by Tasmania
Fire Service is provided.
Issue 3 – Water Supplies for Fire Fighting in Bushfire Prone Areas
Objective – To ensure adequate water supplies are always available to defend property from fire.
AS 3.1 Access to Water Supplies for Fire (a) Access to water supplies for fire fighting
Fighting purposes are also available within 120 m of the
building and conform with Table 22.1, Clause 3.1
a) A water supply or fire hydrant must be within and 3.2 of the Code.
120 metres of the building or building
(b) A water supply delivery point will be provided
envelope (measured as a hose lay along the
within 3 m of the accesses.
ground to the furthest point of the building or
building envelope). (c) Any enclosed water supplies will have an
opening, fitting acceptable to the Tasmania Fire
b) A water supply, fire hydrant or delivery point Service.
must be provided with access compliant with
A Bushfire Management Plan demonstrating
Table 22.1 Clause 2 and must be within 3
compliance with the acceptable solutions
metres distance of the access.
c) Enclosed water supplies must have an Complies with Acceptable Solution
opening, fitting or coupling acceptable to the
Tasmania Fire Service.

PC 3.1 Access to Water Supplies for Fire

Fighting
a) A combination of water supplies, access and
other bushfire protection measures as
advised by the Tasmania Fire Service is
provided.
b) A combination of water supplies, access and
provided.
c) No performance criteria
AS 3.2 Amount of Water to be Supplied A Bushfire Management Plan demonstrating

compliance with the acceptable solutions
a) (i) A static supply of at least 10,000 litres for a
lot of area less than 2500 square metres (m2)
and of at least 20,000 litres for a lot 2500
square metres (m2) or larger, or
(ii) A reticulated supply providing a minimum
flow of 10 litres per second at a minimum
required residual pressure of 200 kiloPascals.
b) Water supply requirements for industrial or
commercial buildings must meet Clause 3.2
a) unless exceeded by the requirements of
the Building Code of Australia.
PC 3.2 Amount of Water to be Supplied
a) A combination of water supplies, access and
provided.
b) No performance criteria.
Issue 4 – Bushfire Protection for Habitable Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas

Objective – To ensure that habitable buildings have appropriate bushfire protection features.
AS 4.1 Habitable buildings in bushfire prone A Bushfire Management Plan demonstrating

areas compliance with the acceptable solutions,
a) The building must be provided with: i)
Separation from the bushfire hazard by a building Complies with Acceptable Solution

protection zone and a fuel modified buffer zone

with dimensions conforming with Table 22.2. ii)
Access conforming with Table 22.1 Clause 2. iii)
Water supplies for fire fighting conforming with
Table 22.1 Clause 3.1 and Clause 3.
PC 4.1 Habitable buildings in bushfire prone
areas
a) The building is provided with a combination of
bushfire protection features, access, water
supplies for fire fighting and other measures as
advised by the Tasmania Fire Service.

6. Conclusion
Application is made for the proposed underground coal mining operation near Fingal, in north eastern
Tasmania. The development site is situated within the Natural Resources and the proposed use is
classified within the Natural Resource Use Class definition under the Scheme. This use class is
identified as being allowable within the Natural Resource Zone under Clause 10.3 of the Scheme.
The planning assessment within this report has demonstrated that the Development Application complies
with the majority of the Acceptable Solutions under the Zone and Codes which are applicable to the
proposed use and development.
However, the proposal relies on an assessment against the performance criteria relating to Wetlands and
Waterways Code (Part 18) as the application is unable to meet the acceptable solutions relating to these
issues as the development is located within 30 metres of Cardiff Creek. The proposal has also been
assessed against the Performance Criteria relating to Siting of Development Code (Part 19) as the site is
considered to be an environmentally sensitive area, as it potentially forms part of the habitat of any
threatened species as defined by the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995.
As demonstrated throughout this report, the proposal has been designed and will be operated in
accordance with the best practice environmental management and the proposal is not anticipated to
result in any alteration to natural flow regimes, and water quality and biological diversity of the Cardiff
waterway is not anticipated to be adversely affected.
Having regard to the above, the proposal is recommended to Break O’Day Council for approval.

GHD
2 Salamanca Square Hobart 7000

GPO Box 667 Hobart 7001
T: 03 6210 0600 F: 03 6210 0601 E: hbamail@ghd.com
© GHD 2011
This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purpose
for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission.
Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.
Document Status
Rev Reviewer Approved for Issue

Author
No. Name Signature Name Signature Date
A J Leaman A Johnson DRAFT A Johnson Draft 12/12/2011
1 J Leaman A Johnson ON FILE A Brownlie ON FILE 13/12/2011
2 J Leaman A Brownlie ON FILE A Brownlie ON FILE 13/1/2012

CBM Sustainable Design
Report for Fingal Coal Project
Mining Scoping Study
December 2011
Disclaimer
This Fingal Coal Project Mining Scoping Study (“Report”):
1. has been prepared by GHD Pty Ltd (“GHD”) for CBM Sustainable Design;
2. may only be used and relied on by CBM Sustainable Design;
3. must not be copied to, used by, or relied on by any person other CBM Sustainable
Design without the prior written consent of GHD;
4. may only be used for the purpose of assisting in the submission of a mining
development application (and must not be used for any other purpose).
GHD and its servants, employees and officers otherwise expressly disclaim responsibility to any
person other than CBM Sustainable Design arising from or in connection with this Report.
To the maximum extent permitted by law, all implied warranties and conditions in relation to the
services provided by GHD and the Report are excluded unless they are expressly stated to
apply in this Report.
The services undertaken by GHD in connection with preparing this Report:
were limited to those specifically detailed in section 1.2 of this Report;
did not include surface mining and supporting surface infrastructure
The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this Report are based on assumptions
made by GHD when undertaking services and preparing the Report (“Assumptions”), including
(but not limited to) the assumptions listed in:
Section 4.4 of this Report
Section 4.6.1 of this Report
GHD expressly disclaims responsibility for any error in, or omission from, this Report arising from
or in connection with any of the Assumptions being incorrect.
Subject to the paragraphs in this section of the Report, the opinions, conclusions and any
recommendations in this Report are based on conditions encountered and information reviewed
at the time of preparation and may be relied on until 12 months, after which time, GHD expressly
disclaims responsibility for any error in, or omission from, this Report arising from or in
connection with those opinions, conclusions and any recommendations.
“GHD has prepared this Report on the basis of information provided by CBM Sustainable
Design, which GHD has not independently verified or checked beyond the agreed scope of work.
GHD does not accept liability in connection with such unverified information, including errors and
omissions in the Report which were caused by errors or omissions in that information.”
32/16074/11/428090 Fingal Coal Project i

Contents
1. Introduction 3
1.1 Project Description 3
1.2 Scope of Works 3
1.3 Battery Limits 4
2. Geology 5
2.1 Geological Site Description 5
2.2 Geological Constraints on Mining Operations 8
2.3 Data Review 9
2.4 Structure Analysis and Impacts 10
2.5 HRCM Drill Plan Commentary 10
3. Resources 12
3.1 Modelling 12
3.2 Model Build Methodology 12
3.3 Inferred Resources 13
4. Mining 14
4.1 Target Seam 14
4.2 Previous Mining Operations 14
4.3 Mining Method 14
4.4 Key Project Assumptions & Impacts 15
4.5 Geotechnical Parameters 16
4.6 UG B&P Design and Mine Plan 16
4.7 Mineable Reserve 20
4.8 Production Rates 20
4.9 Equipment Selection 20
4.10 Annual Development & Production Schedules 21
4.11 Operating/Working Shifts 27
4.12 Manning Requirements 27
5. Underground Services 28
5.1 Coal Clearance 28
5.2 Mechanical 28
5.3 Electrical & Power Distribution 28
32/16074/11/428090 Fingal Coal Project ii

5.4 Dewatering 29
5.5 Fuel 29
5.6 Ventilation 29
6. Conclusions 30
7. Risks and Opportunities 31

7.1 Drift and Mine Access 31
7.2 Drilling 31
7.3 Gas 31
7.4 Surface Subsidence 31
7.5 Production Tonnes 31
8. Go Forward Work Plan 32
9. Bibliography 33
Table Index
Table 1 Stratigraphic Descriptions (Jones, 2011) 6
Table 2 Inferred Resource Summary EL16/2010 (AMAA,
2011) 13
Table 3 Insitu Coal Tonnes by Ash % and Seam Thickness
Cut-offs 13
Table 4 Seam Thickness Range (MMC, 2011) 14
Table 5 ROM Coal 20
Table 6 GHD Continuous Miner Production Rate
Assumptions 20
Table 7 Main Equipment Selection Summary 21
Table 8 Annual Mains/Development Linerar Meters and
ROM Coal Tonnes 24
Table 9 Annual Pillar Extraction (81%) Advance Meters and
ROM Coal Tonnes 25
Table 10 Total and Annual Development/Production ROM
Tonnes 25
Table 11 Total LOM ROM Tonnes by Pillar Extraction
Percentage 26
Table 12 Manning with Respect to Continuous Miners 27
Figure Index
32/16074/11/428090 Fingal Coal Project iii

Figure 1 Fingal Lease and Proposed Mining Area (MMC,
2011) 3
Figure 2 Parmeener Supergroup Stratigraphic Section (Pure
Energy Resources, 2009) 6
Figure 3 Diagrammatic Stratigraphic Section, Fingal Tier
(Pure Energy Resources, 2009) 8
Figure 4 Traditional Bord and Pillar layout 15
Figure 5 Bord & Pillar Design over Seam Thickness 19
Figure 6 Mains and Pillar Development Schedule 22
Figure 7 Pillar Extraction Schedule 23
Figure 8 Annual ROM Tonnes 26
Appendices
A Seam Contours & Quality
B Mine Design Plans
C Equipment List and Numbers
D Design Criteria
E HRCM Proposed Drill Holes
32/16074/11/428090 Fingal Coal Project iv

Executive Summary
GHD’s scope of works serves to assist HardRock Coal Mining Mining Pty Ltd (HRCM) to advance their
mining Development Application (DA) through a high level mining and geology scoping study for the
Fingal Coal Project. There were many unknown variables, during the course of the project that required
to be addressed. GHD has made assumptions to cover most of the unknowns:
Assumptions taken directly from the Minarco Report and Al Maynard and Associates (AMAA) Report.
Assumptions reviewed with John McGiveron (former Duncan Colliery Operations Manager) to include
historical operational experience from the nearby Duncan Colliery.
Assumptions provided to CBM on 4 November 2011 for review to ensure consistency with the overall
project basis of design.
To progress this Scoping Study through to DA submission the following activities were undertaken to
produce results:
Remodelling of coal seams in Minex (undertaken 9 November 2011 after further data was received
from Phil Jones – Al Maynard and Associates).
Mine design based on the outlined assumptions and remodelled coal seams.
Annual mine production and scheduling to develop a mine plan.
GHD were directed by CBM Sustainable Design to develop a mining concept study based on a bord and
pillar methodology with a target production rate of 1 mtpa. This has resulted in a mine design and mine
plan containing approximately 13.4 Mt run of mine (ROM) at 81% pillar extraction. Mine life is expected
to be 15 years, excluding construction and decommissioning, with an operating workforce of
approximately 160 personnel.
The risks and opportunities associated with this project were largely concerned with the level of
confidence in current drilling data. The most crucial risks and opportunities that will impact upon the
viability of carrying out the Fingal Coal project successfully were identified as:
Mine access – assumed to be driven down through the outcropping coal seam. Confirmation is
required on exact location of coal outcrop, as this has the potential to affect tonnes and mine access
location. Drilling along the proposed access alignment will be required to define ground conditions,
and confirm the access methodology.
Drilling – for location of rider seam, faulting presence and confidence in coal tonnes present.
Coal seam gas – problems with coal seam gas experienced at nearby Duncan Colliery, drilling
required at Fingal to assess gas risks more clearly.
Subsidence – although design incorporates a half depth cover subsidence boundary, precise
subsidence levels cannot be confirmed or eliminated without further geotechnical assessment.
Production tonnes – pillar extraction was assumed on a base case of 81%, there is potential to take
more of the pillars based on geotechnical results. The risk also exists that testing may indicate
unstable conditions requiring larger pillars to be left behind.
Geological mining losses – the presence of faults and geological anomalies can impact the
productivity and recovery of the operation resulting in lower productivity and coal tonnages
32/16074/11/428090 Fingal Coal Project 1

Key go forward work to carry out – further drilling and geotechnical which would then incorporated
into a Mining Concept Study.

1. Introduction
1.1 Project Description

HardRock Coal Mining Pty Ltd (HRCM) would like to develop an underground coal mine near the
township of Fingal in North Eastern Tasmania. HCRM have obtained an exploration license (EL16/2010)
from the Tasmania Department of Mines that covers this area.
A previously identified proposed Mining Target Area (MTA) within EL16/2010 that HRCM are interested
in mining is shown shaded with red in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Fingal Lease and Proposed Mining Area (MMC, 2011)
1.2 Scope of Works

GHD’s scope of works serves to assist HRCM to advance their mining Development Application (DA)
through a high level mining and geology scoping study for the Fingal Coal Project

As per the GHD proposal and Gap Analysis Memorandum provided to CBM, GHD has undertaken the
following scope of works:
Review of current data
Gap analysis of geology and mining work required for the DA
Underground Bord and Pillar mine design for the target area identified in the Minarco report
Annual mining development schedule
Annual production schedule
Geological site description
General underground services and electrical requirements
Equipment and manning requirements
To progress this Scoping Study through to DA submission the following activities have been undertaken
to produce results:
Remodelling of coal seams in Minex (undertaken 9th November 2011 after further data was received
from Phil Jones – Al Maynard and Associates)
Scoping Study design assumptions taken directly from the Minarco Report and Al Maynard and
Associates (AMAA) Report
Scoping Study assumptions reviewed with John McGiveron (former Duncan Colliery Operations
Manager) to include historical operational experience from the nearby Duncan Colliery
Scoping Study assumptions provided to CBM on 4 November 2011 for review to ensure consistency
with the overall project basis of design.
It should be noted that there have been many unknown variables during the course of the project that
required to be addressed. GHD has made assumptions to cover most of the unknowns.
1.2.1 Exclusions
The following exclusions apply:
Coal quality assessment
Project economics/economic viability of the proposed concept has not been assessed
Surface infrastructure
1.3 Battery Limits

The scope of work is focused on the underground mining and supporting infrastructure only. All surface
infrastructure, with the exception of ventilation infrastructure is outside GHD’s scope for this study.

2. Geology
2.1 Geological Site Description

The Tasmanian Basin covers a large part of central and eastern Tasmania and is 35 000 sq km in size.
The basin is a structural intra-cratonic basin that is dominated by Permian and Triassic sediments. The
climatic conditions at the time of deposition involved glacial intervals, separated by non-glacial intervals
that spanned 1-8 million years. The Basin contains a stratigraphic sequence known as the Parmeener
Supergroup that is up to 2 km thick of flat lying rocks ranging from Late Carboniferous to Late Triassic in
age. The Supergroup is divided into two sections called the Upper Parmeener Supergroup and the Lower
Parmeener Supergroup, with rocks that represent both marine and terrestrial origins.
The Upper Parmeener Supergroup lies unconformably over the Permian section. The marginal marine
beds are progressively overlain by carbonaceous sandstone and lutite of the basal Upper Parmeener
Supergroup. The beds are carbonaceous with inter-bedded, well sorted cross bedded or ripple laminated
sandstone with volcanic lithic sandstone and lutite coal seams of economic grade, rare tuff (from the
Triassic volcanic eruption of alkali-olivine basalt) and conglomerate beds in the uppermost sequence of
the Upper Parmeener Supergroup. The depositional environment of the volcanic lithic sandstone cycles
represents high sinuosity rivers with finer grained beds as channel fills. Lutite intervals represent
abandoned channel deposits in which coal developed from peat swamps. The palaeocurrents indicate
that the river flow was in an east to southeast direction.
The Lower Parmeener Supergroup lies within a pronounced unconformity on older metamorphosed
sedimentary and igneous rocks. The lowermost Parmeener rocks are debris flow diamicites, drop-stone
diamicites, glacial outwash conglomerates and sandstones, pebbly mudstones and rhythmites. Coal
beds developed in the northern parts of the Tasmanian basin as depositional conditions changed from
glacial to marine. As the basin filled, a relative regression (to the south) of the shoreline occurred,
depositing freshwater sandstones and carbonaceous siltstones making the upper section of the Lower
Parmeener Supergroup.
Late Triassic Coal Measures are present in the majority of the Tasmanian Basin; they are best
developed in the north east region and thus contain the states coal reserves. The Fingal Coal consists of
a series of eight seams (labelled A-H) at variable thicknesses and qualities. The average thickness of the
coal measures is 400 m thick and is part of the Upper Parmeener Supergroup. Major extensions of
dolerite occurred in the Jurassic, covering one third of Tasmania, and lies unconformably over the Upper
Parmeener sediments, capping the Fingal Tier. In some places, the dolerite is up to 200-300 m thick and
intrudes through many parts of the coal measures.
The sedimentary deposits within the exploration lease boundary for EL 16/2010, is capped by Jurassic
dolerite with underlying Quaternary glacial deposits of river gravel, alluvium, talus, dolerite colluvium and
dolerite.
2.1.1 Parmeener Supergroup Stratigraphy

Figure 2 represents the stratigraphy of the Parmeener Supergroups of the Tasmanian Basin with section
description shown in Table 1.

Figure 2 Parmeener Supergroup Stratigraphic Section (Pure Energy Resources, 2009)
Table 1 Stratigraphic Descriptions (Jones, 2011)
Stratigraphic Unit Lithology
Upper Parmeener Quartz Sandstone - course to fine grained, well sorted white quartz sandstone.
Supergroup Outcrops are rare apart from good exposure in the Cardiff Creek where the
formation is 20-30 m thick grading up for several meters into lithic-sandstone
Coal Measures- Dominantly comprised of fine to medium grained lithic

sandstone along with siltstone, mudstone, coals, conglomerated and tuff. Lack
of stratigraphic controls in the coal measures caused by rapid lateral and
vertical variations, absence of marker beds, uniformity of dominant lithic
sandstone throughout the sequence and poor outcrop
Lower Parmeener Limestone and calcareous mudstone – highly fossiliferous with variable
Supergroup terrigenous content. The rock type is inter-bedded and laterally variable.
Glacial drop-stones up to 0.5 m in diameter composed of quartz conglomerates
and granite (most common)
Pebbly sandstone- Thick-bedded to massive, poorly sorted pebbly, fine

sandstone or siltstone. Drop-stones are abundant
Mudstone – Poorly stratified, uniform pale to medium grey mudstone with drop-
stones and is approximately 30 m thick in the Fingal Valley outcropping only in
the creeks.

2.1.2 Coal Seam Geology
The Fingal coal seams have been labelled A to H from youngest to oldest by the Department of Mines.
All eight seams have a high inherent ash content, and a small (<10%) component of bright coal. The coal
is medium in rank, low in sulphur content, and suitable for steam raising purposes (Bacon, 1995).
The Upper Parmeener Supergroup consists of a lower part that is mainly devoid of coal seams and an
upper coal bearing sequence (200 m thick), the two main seams, Seam F and Seam G, occur at the
base of the coal bearing interval. The Fingal coal seams from youngest to oldest include:
Seam A ( 1-3 m thick ) and Seam B ( 5-10 m thick coaly interval) represent carbonaceous intervals
and they consist of plies of coal (<5 m thick) inter-bedded with carbonaceous mudstone and
claystone over intervals of 5-10 m. Seam A and Seam B are considered to be too thin to be of any
economic significance (Jones, 2011).
Seam C (3-6 m thick) has many inter-bedded mudstone and claystone bands and is well developed
along the front of the Fingal Tier and the Mitchell Fault. This seam has very high ash content (Jones,
2011).
Seam D (1-2 m thick) has mudstone and claystone bands. The ash content ranges from 25-35%.
The seam thickness west of the Mitchell Fault is predominately carbonaceous mudstone (Jones,
2011).
Seam E ( 1 m thick) and contains carbonaceous mudstone (Jones, 2011).
Seam F (2-3 m thick), also known as the Duncan seam, is the main coal seam mined at the Duncan
Colliery. The seam consists of 2-3 m of dull coal with minor clay, mudstone partings and stone bands
in the centre and near the roof. The seam splits into four plies in some areas. Seam F tends to thin
towards the south. The raw ash content is around 30%, the specific energy 22-24 MJ/Kg. (Bacon,
1995) (Jones, 2011).
Seam G (1-2 m thick), also known as the East Fingal coal seam, is stratigraphical 30 m lower than
the Duncan seam and is commonly split. The upper and lower splits are 2-3 m in thickness with the
intra-seam sediments being 0-10 m in thickness. The upper split is not as well developed west of the
Mitchell Fault and the coal quality is similar to that of the Duncan seam (Bacon, 1995).
Seam H (< 1 m thick) is split into two thin seams which are not well developed and represents
mudstone bands on both sides of the Mitchell Fault (Jones, 2011).

Figure 3 Diagrammatic Stratigraphic Section, Fingal Tier (Pure Energy Resources, 2009)
2.2 Geological Constraints on Mining Operations

Intrusions, faulting, floor and roof material quality and strength and the presence of gas, igneous
intrusions and faulting may cause alterations in the coal quality as well as cause major discontinuities in
the coal seam. Depending on the extent, significant areas of the coal seam that has been affected from
an intrusion or by displacement may need to be bypassed during mining operation. The strata above the
seam (roof) needs to form a stable roof at the immediate working face; the roof also needs to collapse
readily behind the mining equipment once the pillar extraction has occurred should extraction be
undertaken. Excessively strong materials can cause problems with the roof holding up over large areas
increasing the risk of air blast. Weak floor prone to damage by machinery and or readily broken down in
wet conditions can complicate mining. The seams should not produce large quantities of explosive or
noxious gas such as methane or carbon dioxide.
The Parmeener Supergroup has extensively intruded dolerite dykes and sills, depending on the width
and extent of the intrusions; major disruptions and truncations of the coal seams may result in a lack of

continuity in the strata. In the western section of the Duncan Mine/Coal Reserves Area, upper coal
bearing intervals have been deleted in places due to the basal contact of the dolerite being discordant to
the strata. Previous work completed by Mineral Resources Tasmania (MRT) mapped the dolerite
intrusions; based on borehole, gravity and magnetic data the results showed that the dolerite does not
represent a significant risk to altering the coals.
During operation of the Duncan Mine, some observations regarding the roof and floor stability were
made. The floor strata below seam F was found to be soft (mudstone) resulting in floor breakdown
(exposure to air and moisture and traffic of heavy machinery). To avoid breakdown of the mudstone
underlay, the mine was worked to a coal floor. From previous exploration drilling studies within the
Duncan Mine ( Seam F), based on the borehole data, problems with roof stability may occur in areas
where mudstone has formed the immediate roof together with a coal rider seam (when present, occurring
at a height >0.5 m into the roof). Zones where the roof strata transitions from a mudstone /coal roof to a
sandstone roof stability issues may also occur. Where the roof stratum consists predominately of
sandstone the conditions are predicted to be better.
In 1977, the Fingal Valley Duncan Colliery experienced a methane gas explosion. The mine continues to
get methane readings in the order of 1% despite continual ventilation, this indicates that the presence of
some gas resides in the coal .The gas was identified as being Biogenic gas (100% Methane CH4). An
active hydro-geological system is required for biogenetic gas generation and an active hydrogeological
system appears present in this region. The coals are also at a relative shallow depth within a lower
temperature regime (ideal for methanogenic bacteria).
Several faults have been mentioned in previous studies but the accuracy of the location of the faults is
unknown. Folding and faulting of the strata was experienced in the Duncan Mine. Development of the
mine to the north ceased due to encountering a fault.
2.3 Data Review

The geological data was provided to GHD by Phil Jones at Al Maynard and Associates. The data and
information was in the form of excel files for supporting spread-sheets, pdf files for technical reports,
geological reports, and coal quality reports, contour maps for coal quality and coal thickness for seam F,
borehole location maps and topography contour maps. Coal quality data included Quality Ash, Seam
Floor, Quality volatile Matter, Parting Thickness, Seam Thickness and Coal thickness, for all eight coal
seams of the Fingal coal measures was also received in the form of Surpac model files (dtm and str
files). Access borehole database was also received with data on seam thickness and coal quality in
which a geological model and mine design would be created using Minex modelling software for the
proposed mining area.
2.3.1 Comments on Geological Model

The initial data received by the client were Surpac model files which were not considered preferred for
modelling stratified deposits. GHD requested further data that was suited to Minex modelling software
that is designed to model stratified deposits such as coal deposits. An Access borehole database was
received and used as the data source for the geological model and correlation for the Fingal Coal seams.
The Access borehole database supplied by the client presented some inconsistencies with borehole
data. These included:

Seam thickness – some borehole data from the Access borehole database represents unrealistic
thicknesses. This may be due to the seam partings for some drill holes being included in the seam
thickness where it has been eliminated in other boreholes seam thickness, causing the seam picks to
be incorrect.
Ash data – the ash data from the Coal Quality contour map for Ash, appear excessively high in some
areas. There were inconsistencies in ash percentages when compared to the geological model
created by GHD from the Access borehole database supplied by the client. Both the Coal Quality
contour map for ash and the geological model created using Minex modelling Software demonstrated
bullseye effects, suggesting insufficient sampled drilling data within the area. The high ash content
may be due to heat that has affected the coal because of faulting followed by later igneous intrusions
into the faulted areas.
Relative Density (RD) Values – the relative density was not included in any of the coal quality data
provided by the client.
The F seam contour maps supplied eliminated all drill holes data outside the proposed mining area.
This made it difficult to determine if the coal quality information was accurate when comparing the
coal quality contour maps for both ash and seam thickness, to the geological model created using
the Minex modelling software.
2.4 Structure Analysis and Impacts

The Mitchel Fault is the main fault in the area it trends in a N-S direction and lies to the immediate east of
the proposed mining area. Geophysical interpretations indicate that the Mitchell fault may be a fault zone
rather than a discrete. Current drilling across the proposed mine area is not sufficient to preclude the
possibility of significant faulting.
Faults within coal seams may affect coal mining by offsetting the seam. Associated problems include roof
strata strength and the admission of water or gas into workings. The amount of displacement may affect
mining practices, if the displacement is too large, advancement in that area will cease, if the
displacement still allows economic extraction of the coal, significant stone driveage through the roof or
floor may be required to re-enter the seam and continue mining.
The Triassic coal measures are generally flat lying, with a shallow dip of (<1°) which is ideal for mining
operations when considering mining equipment. The intruding dolerite dykes may cause difficulties in
seam continuity necessitating stone driveage through the dykes. Roof and floor stability issues can also
be associated with the dykes.
2.5 HRCM Drill Plan Commentary
2.5.1 Assumptions
The following assumptions have been made when examining the drill plan titled EL 16/2010 Fingal Tier
Drill Hole Locations and dated 6th October 2011:
Unable to discern, but it is understood that the holes are drilled vertically
Holes to be drilled using diamond coring techniques
Coal seam is relatively shallow dipping

There is not information about the hole depth, hence it is assumed that the holes will be drilled to a
sufficient depth to intersect the coal seam target.
Location of drill holes are as found on the aforementioned drill plan map. If the drill hole location were
to differ from this map then the comments made below may not be applicable.
2.5.2 Drill Plan Comments

The drill hole plan appears to be reasonably sound and based on the available data and knowledge.
VR001 aims to test the seam along strike to the South but also offers a “twin” test of historic hole DM020
and DM031, which apparently intersected high quality coal intercepts. Hole VR002 aims to test the seam
to the north in relatively close proximity to the adits. Holes VR003, VR004 and VR005 are to be drilled in
a traverse on a trace to test for continuity of the seam both at depth and along strike. This hole traverse
may also clarify whether north to north-northwest striking faults are present and the extent of disruption
of the coal seam caused by fault/s.
Overall, the initial program planned without knowing the holes depths and in the absence of reviewing
any existing geological interpretation of any detailed cross sections from historic drill holes (if any) or
undertaking any geological interpretation using detailed cross sections from historic drill holes should
assist to:
Identify the strike extent of the coal seams (the strike extent being tested in approximately 1.5 km).
Determine, to a more limited extent, the depth continuity and lateral extent of the coal seam.
Determine to a limited extent the effect of faults previously interpreted.
Enable to a limited extent the resource estimation on at least part of the exploration license.
Please see Appendix E for the HRCM drill plan.

3. Resources
3.1 Modelling
The geological model for Fingal Coal Mine has been completed with the data obtained from AMAA.
Seam picks and coal quality from the Access borehole database were imported into GEMCOM Minex
(mine design and modelling software package). The located geological intervals in boreholes, both coal
seams and any waste layers of interest, are used to compute gridded data. This basic borehole data may
be supplemented with structural interpretation data eg: outcrops and faulting.
The grids represent particular seam/layer attributes and may be computed using a number of different
interpolation techniques. These grids then form what is termed the geological model. In Minex this
basically consists of a structural model and a quality model. Additional operations may be undertaken on
the model to define sub-crops, exclusion zones and compute other gridded data using the geological
model as a base
3.2 Model Build Methodology

Modelling in Minex consists of two main stages. These may be simply thought of as Borehole Modelling
and Seam Modelling.
Borehole Modelling consists of preparing the correlated seam intervals, through a number of defined
processes, for modelling in which the final objective is to have a record of each seam in each borehole.
Additional data is added to the seam intervals with flags that will allow selectivity in later modelling
operations. The “interpolated” seams that lie between the logged seams are then set to zero as if they
were present where they would have been logged.
Once the Borehole Modelling process is complete, Seam Modelling is undertaken. Seam Modelling
consists of the computation of gridded surface and quality information that is, in general, split into two
main areas, structural and quality.
The structural model is based on a series of gridded numerical surfaces that represent a particular seam
attribute (structure roof, floor and seam thickness) and also includes a number of non-conformable
surfaces (e.g. base of weathering, dolerite floor).
The non-conformable surfaces included in the model are the:
Surface topography (TOPS)
Top of Coal Surface (TOC)
Floor of Coal Surface (FOC)
The topography is computed from a digital terrain model (DTM) that was acquired from contour
information and the other surfaces are computed from interpreted borehole information.
Seam attributes that are interpolated from borehole data, both measured and estimated, are the
elevation of the seam floor and the seam thickness.
There were no ancillary fault interpretation strings included with the borehole information, making it
difficult to interpolate expected seam floor elevation movement due to faulting and are used in

interpolation of the seam floor elevation. The seam roof elevation is then calculated from the seam floor
and computed grid thickness along with interburden thickness and overburden depths.
All initial interpolations are based on data stored within the borehole database. Seams are allowed to
extend through the base of weathering and topography with a final process of stacking and cutting of the
seam surfaces on a nominated base of weathering and topography to properly define the sub-crops and
final extents of each seam layer.
3.3 Inferred Resources

The Inferred Resources for the EL16/2010 lease have been estimated by P.A Jones of AMAA. This
inferred resource estimate is shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2 Inferred Resource Summary EL16/2010 (AMAA, 2011)
Tenement Target Seam Tonnes (Mt)
EL16/2010 F Seam 110
Minarco Mine Consult Pty Ltd (MMC) has estimated the coal resource within the initial Mining Target
Area (MTA) in F seam to be 23 Mt. GHD estimates the F seam coal resource in the MTA to be 25.3Mt at
a 40% Ash cut-off and seam thickness greater than 0.5m. Please refer to Table 3 below, for the tonnes
available for varying seam thickness and Ash cut-off combinations.
Due to the quality of the data as well as the wide spacing of boreholes, GHD considers the resource
estimate to have a low level of confidence.
Modelled F Seam thickness and ash contour plots can be found in Appendix A.
Table 3 Insitu Coal Tonnes by Ash % and Seam Thickness Cut-offs
Ash Cut-off
Seam Thickness > 50 % 50 % 40 % 30 %

Cut-off
0 27,525,000 27,021,000 25,260,000 8,783,000
0.5 27,487,000 26,983,000 25,238,000 8,783,000
1.0 27,220,000 26,716,000 25,111,000 8,783,000
1.5 25,451,000 24,947,000 24,250,000 8,783,000
2.0 20,281,000 20,053,000 19,980,000 8,658,000
2.5 8,465,000 8,465,000 8,465,000 5,665,000

4. Mining
4.1 Target Seam

The F Seam or Duncan Seam has been identified as the most viable target for underground mining
operations at the Fingal Coal Mine. From the data provided and working under the assumption that the F
Seam is currently being targeted for mining by Cornwall Coal who operate the Duncan Colliery, this is a
sound place to start as the base of further examination into proposed mining operations.
The average seam thickness ranges for the various seams in the area, as identified by the AMAA report
(2011), have been shown in Table 4.
Table 4 Seam Thickness Range (MMC, 2011)
Seam Seam Thickness Range Comments

Identifier Name
D D 1 – 2 m with a few mudstone and No known existing workings. Thickest

claystone bands coal sections lie west of the Mitchell
fault
E E 1 m approx. Represented by a mudstone horizon

in a large number of holes
F Duncan 0–3m typically 2-3 m. Note DOM 4 Currently worked at Duncan Colliery
has a 1.8m working section with 0.3m owned by Cornwall Coal. The old
of parting included between 2 coal workings, known as Barbers/Valley
plies mines, appeared to be in a locally
developed lower split of Duncan seam
G East 1 -2m in 2 splits Occurs as 2 splits over most of the

Fingal area.
4.2 Previous Mining Operations

Of the eight seams in the Fingal Tier, only the Duncan and East Fingal Seam (seam F and seam G
respectively) are of viably economic interest. The Duncan Colliery located on mining lease PM1653, and
to the East of the Fingal Exploration Lease EL16/2010, is already mining the Duncan Seam using a
traditional bord and pillar method.
In EL16/2010 three outcropping coal seams are present. These were accessed for coal quality testing by
two old mine entrances or adits, driven in the mid 1950’s. These adits were largely identified as providing
exploration access. Although GHD is reluctant to speculate on the limited information provided, MMC
believes it “possible that the adits could be in the D seam or the bottom split of the F or G seam as stated
by A.P Jones (2011)”.
4.3 Mining Method

The primary mining method has been previously identified by MMC as a conventional or traditional Bord
and Pillar (B&P) operation. This method of mining sees the coal seam divided into regular square blocks
of checker board-like arrangement, where primary headings are driven and intersected at regular

intervals by cut-throughs. Partial pillar extraction is then performed by shaving around the block with a
continuous miner to recover coal, leaving behind a smaller pillar size as demonstrated in Figure 4 and as
advised by John McGiveron in conversation with GHD.
Figure 4 Traditional Bord and Pillar layout
If additional stability is required, then there is the option of leaving larger centre pillars or other areas
behind.
Based on the operations in the area and technical assumptions made, GHD is proposing that the same
method, as employed by Duncan Colliery, be used for development mining and pillar extraction. The
design criteria and assumptions provided in the following sections of this report have been developed
based on the Duncan operation.
4.4 Key Project Assumptions & Impacts

In order to put forward a B&P Design and Mine Plan, it was important to define key assumptions. As
stated in GHD’s Mining Gap Analysis Memorandum to CBM, all assumptions are being based on the
information provided in the MMC technical report dated November 2011 unless otherwise directed by the
client. It should be noted that Minarco’s review bases its findings on the following:
Draft of the Al Maynard and Associates (AMAA) Report
MBGS Appraisal of the Coal Resources Held by the Cornwall Coal Company – 1979
Two memoranda produced by Coffey Mining – 2011
The AMAA Technical Report on the Fingal Coal Project clearly states the “…data in this report was
supplied by HardRock and derived mostly from publicly available reports and data from Mineral
Resources Tasmania (MRT) with some additional data from Coffey Mining Limited.”. This is an import
project assumptions point for comment as it impacts on the level of confidence that this Scoping Study
can deliver.

GHD therefore makes the assumption that the Access Borehole database, compiled by Coffey Mining
from Open file reports from MRT, in particular report UR1981_10, will be the basis information for the
Scoping Study.
It should be noted that the accuracy of all previous data and information is under question and thus may
have an extensive impact on the designs and conclusion of this study.
4.5 Geotechnical Parameters
4.5.1 Pillar Design

The pillars for Fingal Coal have been designed based on the advice provided by John McGiveron (2011)
who has experience with mining the same target seam.
Therefore, a square pillar configuration design is being proposed with 35 m x 35 m wide development
pillars. The extraction panel pillars have been designed as partial extraction pillars with final dimensions
of 15 m x 15 m, to a safety factor of 2, however, final pillar size will vary appropriately with depth as
working conditions at Fingal Coal are deeper than Duncan Colliery. This design should be adequate at
400m depth of cover with a bord width of 5.2 m and extraction height assumed at the seam thickness.
Barrier pillars at the edge of the mining lease boundary have been excluded from the design as the
section panels have been designed to a subsidence boundary line within the lease. The barrier pillars
between each of the mining section panels have been designed to 50m, which is assumption based on
prior project experience.
4.5.2 Roof /Floor Conditions & Support

From the information provided to GHD, it should be acknowledged that it is difficult to comment on the
exact roof and floor conditions that will be present at Fingal Coal without updated drilling and testing. The
seam mining characteristics observed at Duncan Colliery indicated the presence of hard roof conditions
with heave of soft floor occurring throughout the mine. To mitigate the risk of heave, coal may be left in
the floor during pillar development, then mined in pillar extraction on retreat from the panel.
It is therefore assumed that similar conditions and issues will be faced when mining the F seam at Fingal
Coal mine and roof will require mesh and bolting for support. Potential caving issues will have to be
confirmed with further geotechnical assessment.
In practice additional roof support would be installed periodically and as required in the vicinity of
geological anomalies such as faults, areas of weak roof (e.g. seam split areas), and extraction pillar.
4.6 UG B&P Design and Mine Plan
4.6.1 Design Criteria & Assumptions Summary

Along with key project assumptions, specific mine design criteria were identified for the purpose of
generating B&P designs, mine plans and annual production and development schedules. The following
assumptions have been sourced from Phil Jones (Al Maynard and Associates), John McGiveron (Former
Operations Manager, Duncan Colliery), Minarco MineConsult Fingal Report and GHD experience on
similar operations. These were necessary to define for producing the results of the bord and pillar mine
design plans:

Minimum mining height of 2m (to allow for roof support installation and safe working height)
Ash cut off of 40% (industry standard recognised upper limit)
Subsidence barrier estimated at a 20m barrier from the MTA plus half depth of cover
That 5 mains are sufficient to meet conveying, transport and ventilation requirements
That a barrier pillar of 50m width between mains and panels sections
Hard roof conditions
Soft floor conditions (0.1m of coal to be left in the floor)
4 x 1.8m full encapsulated roof bolts per row at 1m centres of rows
Roof meshing done as required
Square development pillar size of 35m x 35m
Square extraction pillar size of 15m x 15m
7 headings per bord and pillar panel
3 access roadways from mains to bord and pillar sections
Mains and production mining rate of 1 m/hr
Pillar extraction mining rate of 2.5 m/hr
Operating at 3 shifts/day for 5 days/week - total 15 shifts/week
Please refer to Appendix D for detailed design criteria and assumptions.
4.6.2 Methodology
The bord and pillar design and scheduling process was done using a combination of three software
packages:
MINEX – Underground Design and Modelling software
ProgeCAD – Underground Design CAD add-on to XPAC
XPAC – Mine Scheduling and Planning software
The MINEX software package was used to import the drill hole data for validation and the generation of
coal roof, floor and area topography grids. These grids set the foundation for determining parameters:
minimum and maximum mining thickness contours
approximate coal ash contours
depth of cover
Based on the coal thickness of F Seam and a nominated subsidence boundary inside the lease, a bord
and pillar design was overlain. This allowed for the resource calculations to be performed in MINEX
(Section 3.3) from which an expected production and pillar extraction schedules would be developed.
4.6.3 Mine Access

The mine access for mains development will be driven down off topography on the far northern end of
the lease. Here the coal outcrops at the surface and should be easily driven into with a miner to begin the

development of the five access mains for ventilation, travel and conveying. It is assumed that the
material through which development starts will be of appropriate hardness and composition for the
selected miner to handle. If this is not the case the than a box cut or soft ground tunnelling techniques
can be used to the limit of the soft material.
Mine access will be through five for mains allocated for the purposes of ventilation, coal conveying and
travel. The mains will be split into three intakes and two returns. It is essential to separate out each of
these mains access routes for health and safety as well as production efficiency.
4.6.4 Bord and Pillar Design

The seam thickness of the F Seam within EL16/2010 ranges from 0.5m to 2.75m. The bord and pillar
design has been developed using a 2m seam height cut off. This is due to mining not being practical or
feasible with seam thicknesses any lower than this unless low seam height equipment is used. It should
be noted that in some places stone will need to be cut in order to achieve a minimum 2m working
section.
Figure 5 shows the proposed bord and pillar design following the 2m coal seam thickness cut-off and
overlain on the thickness contours.
There are a total of 16 mining sections (BNP101 to BNP 116) that have been designed with three
roadways accessing the mains through 50 m wide barrier pillars.
Additional seam thickness contours and ash contours can be seen in Appendix A.

Figure 5 Bord & Pillar Design over Seam Thickness

4.7 Mineable Reserve
From GHD’s analysis of the coal in F seam, there is approximately 13.4 Mt of accessible mineable coal
in the MTA. GHD’s estimate has been based on a seam thickness cut-off of 2m, ash cut-off of 40% and
subsidence boundary. A summary of the estimated ROM quantities can be seen in Table 5.
Table 5 ROM Coal
Coal (tonnes) Stone (tonnes) Total
Primary Development 4,513,721 694,622 5,208,343
Pillar Extraction 8,160,121 - 8,160,121
Total 13,368,464
4.8 Production Rates

The production rates for this study are based on target production rate assumptions of a similar
underground bord and pillar operations in the region. Mains development, headings and pillar extraction
will be carried out by a continuous miner bolter and shuttle car systems.
In scheduling the Mains, Panel Development and Extraction mining, GHD assumed the following
production rates shown in Table 6. Note that although the Extraction advance rate is 2.5 times that of the
Mains and Development advance rate, the miner needs to cut more meters per week around each pillar
in order to advance forward 11.5 linear meters.
Table 6 GHD Continuous Miner Production Rate Assumptions
Works Advance Rate (m/hr) Linear Rate (linear m/wk) Note
Mains 1 13.4 5 Headings
Development 1 9.2 7 Headings
Extraction 2.5 11.5
4.9 Equipment Selection

A summary of the major pieces of equipment required to achieve the target production rate of 1 mtpa is
shown in Table 7, for a more detailed list outlining all the addition supporting equipment pieces, please
see Appendix B. Please note that the numbers in this equipment list are representative of steady state
full production, and that these numbers will need to ramp up from start of production.

Table 7 Main Equipment Selection Summary
Equipment Type Number
Mains Conveyor 47 inch 3
Surface Fan 1
Mains Fan 2
Continuous Miner Joy 12CM12 5
Roof Bolter 5
Shuttle Car Joy 10SC 10 + 1 spare
Breaker Line Support 5
Mobile Feeder Breaker 5
LHD’s 7t and 10t 4
UG Personnel Transporter UG Toyotas 7
Service Vehicles 3
Ambulance 1
Please not the following:

Although the nominated continuous miner is capable of mining a low seam height, mining under 2m
would not allow for effective roof support to be installed. It is essential that mining height be sufficient
enough to accommodate roof bolting machinery on the continuous mine to work and create a safe
working environment.
In order to achieve the desired production rate, five continuous miners are required. This is based on
productivity assumptions made with regards to geological and mining conditions. Upon confirmation
of roof and floor conditions, by further drilling and assessment, these assumptions can be revised.
These revisions may then have an impact on production rates and thus the required number of
continuous miners.
Ventilation issues may be experienced with five miners, however this is outside the scope of this
study.
4.10 Annual Development & Production Schedules

The mining development and pillar extraction schedules are shown below in Figure 6 and Figure 7,
coloured by year of development/extraction.

Figure 6 Mains and Pillar Development Schedule

Figure 7 Pillar Extraction Schedule
4.10.1 Production Schedule

This Scoping Study allows for a conceptual analysis of one production scenario aimed at producing
indicative values for potential mining operations at the Fingal Coal Mine. It needs to be understood that

these values are limited only to the geological/geotechnical data and confidence of faulting and
geological anomalies within the limited information provided to GHD.
GHD has been directed to use 1 Mtpa as a target annual production rate. Based on the production rates
of nearby Duncan Colliery, it is suggested that the nominated production rate may be optimistic.
However, GHD’s equipment selection allows for the ramp-up or reduction of appropriate equipment for
variable mining situations.
The bord and pillar schedules presented as plans in Section 4.6.4 can also be shown in tabled format.
Table 8 and Table 9 outline how many metres development mining and extraction mining advances
through the pillars annually. The total tonnes of ROM coal have also been calculated annually, it should
be noted that a certain amount of stone will need to be cut on primary development to allow for a safe
working height. Pillar extraction tonnes are based on a 81% partial pillar extraction rate.
Table 8 Annual Mains/Development Linerar Meters and ROM Coal Tonnes

Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10 Y11 Y12 Y13 TOTAL
Mains 1400 700 700 700 700 700 220
BNP 101 120 80
BNP 102 360
BNP 103 500 200
BNP 104 780
BNP 105 800
BNP 106 200 740
BNP 107 280 820
BNP 108 160 900
BNP 109 360 500 240
BNP 110 100 840
BNP 111 140 840
BNP 112 300 540 300
BNP 113 160 980
BNP 114 1000 100
BNP 115 200 780
BNP 116 680 100
F Seam (t) 264,440 309,140 329,545 357,868 374,032 390,308 438,901 392,929 428,354 393,628 417,821 395,504 21,251 4,513,721
Stone (t) 73,299 96,774 91,103 78,709 82,531 53,732 29,988 36,688 37,151 19,748 29,722 58,705 6,472 694,622
To allow for adequate advancement of mains to create room for additional workforce, continuous miners
and underground services, pillar extraction will be delayed until the third year of production, as
represented in Table 9.

Table 9 Annual Pillar Extraction (81%) Advance Meters and ROM Coal Tonnes
Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10 Y11 Y12 Y13 Y14 Y15 TOTAL
Mains - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BNP 101 200
BNP 102 400
BNP 103 200 500
BNP 104 700 20
BNP 105 800
BNP 106 380 600
BNP 107 600 500
BNP 108 700 400
BNP 109 800 250
BNP 110 950
BNP 111 1000
BNP 112 200 900
BNP 113 300 800
BNP 114 400 700
BNP 115 500 500
BNP 116 700 100
F Seam (t) - - 373,427 614,720 614,873 690,145 713,487 801,133 671,096 730,220 745,445 778,565 727,040 659,867 40,104 8,160,121
Stone (t) -
The annual and LOM production tonnes are shown in Table 10 and graphed in Figure 8 below.
Table 10 Total and Annual Development/Production ROM Tonnes
Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8
MAINS/SECTION DEVELOPMENT
F Seam (t) 264,440 309,140 329,545 357,868 374,032 390,308 438,901 392,929
Stone (t) 73,299 96,774 91,103 78,709 82,531 53,732 29,988 36,688
PILLAR EXTRACTION (81%)
F Seam (t) - - 373,427 614,720 614,873 690,145 713,487 801,133
TOTALS
Total (t) 337,739 405,914 794,075 1,051,297 1,071,436 1,134,185 1,182,376 1,230,750
Y9 Y10 Y11 Y12 Y13 Y14 Y15 TOTAL

MAINS/SECTION DEVELOPMENT
F Seam (t) 428,354 393,628 417,821 395,504 21,251 - - 4,513,721
Stone (t) 37,151 19,748 29,722 58,705 6,472 - - 694,622
PILLAR EXTRACTION (81%)
F Seam (t) 671,096 730,220 745,445 778,565 727,040 659,867 40,104 8,160,121
TOTALS
Total (t) 1,136,601 1,143,596 1,192,988 1,232,774 754,763 659,867 40,104 13,368,464

Figure 8 Annual ROM Tonnes
4.10.2 Production Scenarios

Total ROM tonnes have been calculated for four different pillar extraction rates from 100% pillar
extraction to 50 % pillar extraction. Due to the limited confidence in current drilling data, it is difficult to
draw any conclusions around the expected geotechnical conditions or pinpoint the safe amount of pillar
support that would be required. Table 11 outlines the Life of Mine (LOM) tonnes based of the different
pillar extraction rates. The 100% and 50% have been taken as arbitrary percentages, whereas the 81%
has been calculated from a 15m x 15m pillar left behind and 61% as the 15m x 15m pillar and additional
5m x 10m side supports left behind.
Table 11 Total LOM ROM Tonnes by Pillar Extraction Percentage
Pillar Extraction %
100 % 81 % 61% 50%
Main/Development Tonnes 5,208,343 5,208,343 5,208,343 5,208,343
Pillar Extraction Tonnes 10,074,224 8,160,121 6,145,277 5,037,112
Total ROM Tonnes* 15,282,567 13,368,464 11,353,620 10,245,455
*Note that no geological and mining losses have been considered in the calculation of these tonnages.

4.11 Operating/Working Shifts
GHD has assumed a 5 day/week with 3 shifts per day roster for coal production. Each shift will be 8
hours long with yearly operations running at 220 days per year (with weekends and public holidays
assumed as non-operational days).
4.12 Manning Requirements

Manning requirements include necessary maintenance crew members and auxiliary support members
where the following breakdown applies:
General Staff – mine staff: cleaners, trainers, safety personnel, paramedics, administration etc. Set
number of people for entire operation regardless of the amount of continuous miners working.
General UG Labour - surface/underground managers, tech services, ventilation and engineering
managers, 2 pumping crew, 4 brickies, 1 additional labourer. This indicates a workforce of 15
persons (5 per shift at 3 shifts per day). No need to increase these numbers with respect to
continuous miners at this stage.
Mining Crew – 1 deputy, 3 miner/shuttle car drivers, 1 offsiders, 2 roof bolters, 1 trades persons. For
example, this means that one miner has a crew of 8 people, with 3 shifts per day is 24 people. Then
for three miners this means a working mining crew of 72 is required.
Addition Support Staff – accounts for staff on holidays that require replacement, worker
compensation staff replacement, long service/annual leave staff replacements. Set number of people
of entire operation regardless of continuous miners working.
Estimates were based on industry standard operation of similar size and methods. Underground
manning requirements have been determined on the basis of how many continuous miners (CM’s) are
operated simultaneously.
Table 12 Manning with Respect to Continuous Miners
Type Three CM’s Four CM’s Five CM’s
General Staff 15 15 15
General UG Labour 15 15 15
Mining Crew 72 96 120
Additional Support Staff 10 10 10
Total Day Shift Workforce 64 72 80
Total Operation Workforce 112 136 160

5. Underground Services
5.1 Underground/Surface Infrastructure

Underground infrastructure required for operations of bord and pillar workings encompasses the
following:
Mechanical/maintenance stations
Electrical sub-stations
Pumping stations
Coal clearance – conveyors
Ventilation fans
Crib rooms
Rescue chambers
Surface infrastructure has been excluded for the Mining Scope of Works with the exception of the
associated relevant ventilation infrastructure. There will be a main fan station located on the surface that
will be expected to meet the required air flow ventilation.
5.1.1 Coal Clearance

The bord and pillar primary development has been designed with seven roadways using square pillars
with a belt conveyor to be located in the centre of roadways. High capacity transfer chutes would be
required to transfer coal from the conveyors located within the bord and pillar panels to the drift conveyor
in the mains for transport to the surface.
Nearby Duncan Colliery uses a 42 inch conveyer to meet production targets of approximately 450,000
tpa. It is estimated that a 47 inch mains conveyor will be required for the Fingal Mine. As additional
drilling increases the confidence with the amount of tonnes scheduled for production, more appropriate
panel section and mains drift conveyors can be recommended.
5.1.2 Mechanical
There will be a requirement for an underground mechanical and maintenance station to service all
development and production machinery. This will be in a location central to the current area of mining
works. Compressed air/raw water will be supplied to the mine via the drift.
5.1.3 Electrical & Power Distribution

The power supply to the underground mine will be fed via the drift from a surface substation located at
the drift top. Power will be supplied to two pit bottom distribution boards (DB) (development and coal
clearance). The two pit bottom DBs, (mining and coal clearance) will supply the development and coal
clearance substations.
Power will be reticulated around the underground mine from the pit bottom DBs to the associated
substations using 11 kV rated steel cables.

5.1.4 Dewatering
Nearby Duncan Colliery experiences build-up of water within workings, significantly so that pumping
operates seven days per week and is sufficient for all site water requirements (McGiveron, 2011). GHD
therefore assumes the similar ground water conditions are present around F Seam on the Fingal Coal
Project and dewatering using a fishtank arrangement via the drift will be required to ensure safe working
conditions.
5.1.5 Fuel
Fuel, lubricant stations and all associated infrastructure will be located and accounted for on the surface.
5.1.6 Ventilation
Adequate ventilation of mains headings and cut throughs will be essential as this F seam has a history of
complications caused by the presence of gas. In 1976 there were four fatalities after a gas explosion in
nearby Duncan Colliery. Ventilation of bord and pillar operations is commonly done using either brattice
ventilation, auxiliary fan ventilation or flood ventilation (full flow through).
It is proposed that ventilation of the Fingal Coal project will be done through auxiliary fan ventilation to
ensure adequate air circulation minimising the risk of gas explosions.

6. Conclusions
The geological data presented to GHD for this study is out-dated and incomplete, the quality of the data
reduces the level of confidence in the results the study delivers. To overcome the data issues GHD has
made several assumptions.
GHD has developed a mining concept study based on a bord and pillar methodology with a target
production rate of 1 mtpa. This has resulted in a mine design and mine plan containing approximately
13.4 Mt ROM at 81% pillar extraction. Mine life is expected to be 15 years excluding construction and
decommissioning, with a total workforce of approximately 160 personnel.
Further drilling is required to confirm the exact location of the F seam roof and floor as well as identify the
presence of a suspected rider seam. Additional drilling will also provide an indication of the location of
the rider seam, its thickness, material between the split as well as size of the split. The development of
the drilling program should be in conjunction with a geologist already familiar with the area geology.
Core testing to determine the coal quality/Relative Density (RD) of the F seam coal and surrounding
material is required. Geotech, resource and gas drilling and testing will allow for more confidence in
geotechnical conditions underground as well as more accurate coal tonnage representations and
washability predictions. Geotechnical testing is required to confirm several geotechnical parameters that
may affect mine design, access location and methodology and production rates.
F Seam geological model needs to be re-assed and re-modelled based on the results of the further
drilling program and coal quality testing. Location of coal roof and floor may indicate greater amount of
coal present within EL16/2010 above the 2m seam thickness contour cut-off.
As this is a scoping study, GHD has not tried to optimise the results. It should therefore be noted that the
results presented are not precise figures and will require updating as confidence grows in information to
provide a more accurate assessment.

7. Risks and Opportunities
The risks and opportunities associated with this project are largely concerned with the level of confidence
in current drilling data. The following sections outline the most crucial risks and opportunities that will
impact upon the viability of carrying out the Fingal Coal project successfully.
7.1 Drift and Mine Access

From the historical information available (please refer to Section 9 Bibliography), it has been assumed
that the Mains will drift in on the outcropping coal seam. It is essential to have this confirmed, as it has
the potential impact upon the location of Mains access/location and mining tonnes. A re-design of the
mine layout may be required along with re-assessment of the mineable tonnes in F seam if access
location changes.
7.2 Drilling
Drilling has been mentioned in several instances already due to the high risks associated with the
knowledge of coal roof and floor. The drilling borehole data used in this study is sparse and does not
identify the location of the suspected rider seam or the presence of any faulting in the mining target area.
A drilling program incorporating geotechnical and resource drilling will provide more confidence on fault
locations and in how much coal is actually recoverable.
7.3 Gas
Nearby Duncan mine experiences problems with coal seam gas which has been the cause of fatalities in
the past. There is currently no information on the gas content within the area targeted for mining which
means that GHD are unable to comment upon the levels of risk associated with gas issues, nor the level
of strategies required for monitoring and mitigation. This indicates the opportunity for gas drilling to be
conducted along with the geotechnical and resources drilling.
7.4 Surface Subsidence

The bord and pillar design has been completed taking into account a half depth of cover subsidence
boundary. The partial pillar extraction method proposed may reduce the level of subsidence; however,
this cannot be confirmed without more confidence in the geotechnical parameters in the mining area.
7.5 Production Tonnes

Although the base case pillar extraction is 81%, there is the possibility of taking more of the pillars
depending on the results geotechnical drilling and analysis provide. This will increase the ROM tonnes
and potential mine life of the operation. There is the risk that larger pillars will need to be left behind to
ensure a stable and safe working environment and subsidence mitigation. This is more likely in the areas
affected by geological structure and the deeper areas of the proposed mine layout. Mining tonnes are
subject to loss due to unexpected geological features and geotechnical issues. No mining or geological
losses have been applied to the current mineable reserve estimate.

8. Go Forward Work Plan
At this level of Scoping Study, the current data and technical information is sufficient to proceed with a
preliminary Bord and Pillar design. However, the results will be extremely subjective based on the current
limited confidence in the geotechnical and geological data present. The following recommendations are
made as an indicative go forward work plan for future detailed studies:
Development of an exploration plan based on initial mine design to improve confidence in early target
areas.
Core testing to better determine the coal quality/Relative Density (RD) of the F seam coal and
surrounding material is required.
Geotechnical test work to define the following:
– Principal stresses and directions
– Ground conditions for the proposed drift alignment
– Roof and floor conditions
– Identification of faults
Coal seam gas analysis
The F Seam geological model needs to be re-assessed and re-modelled based on the results of the
further drilling program and coal quality testing
Development of a surface subsidence no-go map
A detailed Concept Study including project economics that incorporates updated drilling and
modelling data

9. Bibliography
Bacon, C. A. (1983). Analysis of Coal from the Duncan Seam, Duncan Colliery, Fingal. Tasmanian Department of
Mines.
Bacon, C. A. (1983). The Fingal Coal Feilds. Tasmanian Department of Mines.
Bacon, C. A. (1992). Possibility of Inrush at the Duncan Colliery. Tasmanian Department of Mines.
Jones, P. A. (2011). Technical Report on the Fingal Coal Project, Located at North-East Tasmania, Australia. Al
Maynard and Associates Pty Ltd.
Minarco-MineConsult. (2011). Initial Technical Review of Fingal Coal Project.
Pure Energy Resources. (2009). Tasmanian Special Exploration Licence SEL 32/2003, Final Report .
Reid, C. (2002). The Tasmania Basin-Gondwanan Pertoleum System. University of Tasmania, School of Earth
Sciences.
Threader, V. M., & Bacon, C. A. (1983). The Department of Mines Coal Exploration Programme Fingal Tier.
Tasmanian Department of Mines.

Appendix A
Seam Contours & Quality

Appendix B
Mine Design Plans

Appendix C
Equipment List and Numbers

Project Fingal Coal Project
Job No. 32-16074
Client CBM Sustainable Design
Date 9/12/2011
Revision 0
Mining Equipment List for Fingal Coal Project
Total Quantity (New

Equipment New Reuse/Upgrade
and Reused)
Conveyors and Transfer Towers

Mains Conveyor 3 3
Jiffy Conveyor 1 1
Panel Conveyor 3 3
Surface Rill Tower 1 1
Ventilation Fans and Structures
Main Fans 2 0 2
Development Equipment
Continuous Miner (Joy 12CM12 @ Duncan) 5 0 5
Shuttle Car (Joy 10SC type) 11 11
Mobile Feeder Breaker 5 0 5
Breaker Line Support 5 0 5
Development Substation (11kV) 5 0 5
DCB (1kV) 6 0 6
Isolator 6 0 6
Auxiliary Fan 8 0 8
Face Cables and Hoses 5 0 5
Ventilation Tubes 8 0 8
Cable Boat 5 0 5
Cribroom/Toilet/Locker Room 5 0 5
Firefighting Supplies 6 0 6
PED System 160 0 160
Cap Lamps 160 0 160
Charging Rack 5 0 5
Portable Ventilation Monitors 14 0 14
Portable Gas Monitors 14 0 14
Self Rescuers 160 0 160
First Response Emergency Evacuation Kit (FREEK) 5 0 5
Quick Fill Compressed Air Breathing Apparatus (CABA) Station 4 x C-40 0 4 x C-40
6 x C-20 6 x C-20
Panel Services and Fit Out
Underground Fixed Gas Monitoring Equipment 1 0 1
Communication and Network Control System 1 0 1
Fuel and Lubrication 1 0 1
Belt Communications 1 0 1
Main Switchboard - Underground Mining 1 0 1
Air Compressor 2 2
Stone Dust Tower 1 0 1
Bulk Stone Duster 4 4
Trickle Duster 7 0 7
Power Services
Substation - Surface (11kV) 1 0 1
Pumping Services
Development Dewatering Pumps (29l/s @ 95m) 5 0 5
Intermediate Mains Pumps + swimming pools 3 3
Underground Support Equipment
LHD (7t) 3 0 3
LHD (10t) 1 0 1
Underground Personnel Transporter 5 0 5
Underground Personnel Transporter - Hiabs 2 0 2
Service Vehicles (UG Toyotas) 3 0 3
Ambulance 1 0 1
Powertram 1 0 1
Grader (Cat 120Y or equivalent) 1 0 1
Forklift (25t) 1 0 1
Belt Reeler 2 0 2
Bobcat 2 0 2
REV Description Date Originator Checker Approved

A First Draft 18/11/11 SW BK DH
0 Final 9/12/11 SW BK DH
Appendix D
Design Criteria

Project Fingal Coal
Job No. 321607411
Client CBM Sustainability Group
Date 9/12/2011
Design Assumptions Value Unit Comments Decision Maker Approver

Project
Target Production Rate 1,000,000 tpa GHD Assumption
Target First Coal 1/01/2013 GHD Assumption
Battery Limit Top of Drift Conveyor
Raw Coal Ash Cut off 40 %
Extracted Seams F "F" seam also know as "Duncan Seam"
Geology/Geotech
Depth of Cover >400 m Up to and exceed 400m
Insitu Density 1.6 tonnes/m3 As per supplied reports
Faulting Present
Intrusions
Subsidence Barrier 20 + half depth of cover m GHD Assumption - general industry accepted rule
Primary Stress Direction No available data to support understanding of strata stress
conditions. Important to determine pillars extraction sequence
and stress notching impacts
Roof Condition Hard roof suspected Require detailed geological and geotechnical logs/rock mass
parameters to develop the roof support design for primary
development as well as stooping
Roof Support may be required 4 x 1.8m full encapsulated roof bolts per row at 1m centres of
rows. Roof meshing as required.
Floor Condition Soft floor heave If soft, leave 0.1m coal in floor. Require geotechnical data for at
suspected least 5m off floor to determine if foundation failure is a potential.
Access
Access Methodology Drift
Transport Drift Grade 1 in 10 ratio
Conveyor Drift Grade 1 in 8 ratio
Transport Drift Dimensions 5.2 x 2.6 m GHD Assumption based on similar operation
Conveyor Drift Dimensions 5.2 x 2.6 m GHD Assumption based on similar operation
Minimum thickness of fresh Permian above seam
Maximum Depth of Cover Depth variation is crucial to determine pillar loading, goafing and
subsidence characteristics
Mains Development
Mining Method Bord and Pillar Miner bolter
Gateroad width 5.2 m
Pillar dimensions 35 x 35 m GHD Assumptions - based on direction from john McGiveron
Advance rate 1 m/hr GHD Assumption based on similar operation
Utilisation
Shift Roster 5days @ 3 shifts/day shift/day 5 hours per shift @ 15 hours per day
Number of Headings 5# Assume 5 for primary development. May be reduced if stress
data indicates potential stability issues
Seam cut off 2 m In general 2m but areas of 1.8m to ensure straight mains
Maximum Roadway Height 2.60 m Maximum Seam thickness minus floor coal
Minimum Roadway Height 2.60 m
Coal left in floor 100 mm
Maximum Stone cut 0.70 m
Dilution mm
Production Panels
Mining Method Bord and Pillar Possible cut and flit (place change). TBA
Gateroad width 5.2 m
Pillar dimensions 35 x 35 GHD Assumption based on direction from John McGiveron
Advance rate 1 m/hr GHD Assumption based on similar operation
Utilisation
Barrier Pillar Width 50 m Width to height ratio of at least 5 - preferably 10
Number of Entries 3 #
Number of Headings 7 #
Maximum section length m
Development Section Moves days
Seam cut off 2 m
Maximum Roadway Height 2.60 m Maximum Seam thickness minus floor coal
Coal left in floor 100 mm
Maximum Stone cut 0.40 m
Dilution mm
Pillar Extraction
Extraction Method split and quarter
Sequence To be determined with further geotech
Min Pillar Size 15 x 15 m Post extraction pillar size - GHD Assumption based on direction
from John McGiveron.
Expected Recovery 81 % 50-100% of the pillar by area.
Advance Rate 2.5 m/hr GHD Assumption based on similar operation
Utilisation
Seam cut off 2 m
Maximum Extraction height 2.70 m Maximum Seam thickness
Minimum Extraction Height 2.00 m
Coal left in floor 0 mm Extract floor coal where viable
Maximum Stone cut 0 m Cut to seam height
Dilution
Development De-Rating
Mains
Initial development %
Development through faults %
Water
Gas
Depth of Cover
Rider seams
Orientation to principal horizontal stress +/-20° 0 %
Orientation to principal horizontal stress +/-20-45° 5 %
Orientation to principal horizontal stress +/-45-90° 25-50 %
Soft floor 0 % Heave in floor historically observed in nearby mine
Cut height 0
Processing
Product Specifications %Ash
Services
Development raw water requirement (per miner) l/s
Dust suppression raw water requirement l/s
Sprinkler raw water usage l/s
Peak raw water usage l/s
Regular raw water usage l/s
Maximum pressure of underground water lines kPa
Min raw water underground pipe pressure achieved 350 kPa Taken from AS2419 - Fire Hydrant Installations
Dewatering required Yes

Compressed air requirement m³/hr
CAPEX/OPEX
Base Date of Estimate
British Pound (GBP) £
Chinese Yuan (CNY) ¥
European Euro (EUR) €
US Dollar (USD) $
Electrical
Underground distribution voltage rating 11 kV
Low voltage rating for long distance requirement 1 kV eg. Development and large motors
Low voltage rating for underground mine 690 V
Fault level of underground mine equipment 20 kA
Current Rating of Incomer and Feeders A
NER - earth fault current requirement 5A Neutral Earthing Resistor (NER) at transformers for
underground mine
Development miner maximum connected electrical kW
load
Required Electrical Load Percentage 85 %
Diversity Factor (Electrical Loads) 0.7 To be applied to load summary
HV switches required on underground mine
equipment
Fibre Optic reticulation underground
HV cable rating kV for underground HV equipment
Equipment IP Rating IP56
Ventilation Loads kW
PED system Personnel underground
Coal Clearance System
$/ROMt
Angle of Surcharge 21 degrees Estimated based on Beckley's method
Angle of Repose 37 degrees CEMA standards
Belt Grade FRAS All underground belts to be FRAS, Grade S AS4606
Belt Spec 47 inch GHD Assumption based on similar operations
Lump Size (d95) -300 mm
Cut Height m
Development Width 5.2 m
Number of headings (mains) 5# GHD Assumption based on similar operation
Development Unit Peak Rate 250 tph per CM unit assuming Feeder Breakers
Drives VVVF All drives to be VVVF
Belt Cover
Trunk, Drift Belt Velocity m/s
Maingate Belt Velocity (Development) m/s
Trunk, Drift Belt Width mm
Maingate Belt Width mm
Motor Size kW
Maingate Conveyor installation
Trough Angle degrees
Trunk, Drift Idler Spacing (Carry/Return) m
Maingate Idler Spacing (Carry/Return) m
Equipment
Continuous Miner 5 # units Joy 12CM12 style miner
Shuttle Car 11 # units Joy 10SC type
Feeder Brreaker 5 # units
Boot end 3 # units
Roofbolters 3 # units
Mobile roof supports? 12 # units A potential if mining method chosen suits the equipment or if
ground warrants the use of MRS
LHD's 4 # units 7t and 10t units
Service Vehicles 3 # units
Underground Personnel Transporter 7 # units UG Toyotas
Ambulance 1 # units
Ventilation
Quantity m
Pressure m
Gas outburst threshold m³/t
Gas make
Refrigeration Requirements
Environment
Surface Subsidence No restrictions Surface structures will be impacted
0 Final 9/12/11 SW DLH DLH

B Draft 22/11/11 SW DLH DLH
A Draft 4/11/11 SW DLH DLH
REV Description Date Originator Checker Approved
Appendix E
HRCM Proposed Drill Holes

587,000mE
588,000mE
589,000mE
590,000mE
591,000mE
592,000mE
593,000mE
594,000mE
GY66 Harefield
RDH8 Killymoon
5,392,000mN 5,392,000mN
RDH9 Killymoon
GY69 Harefield
C8 Fingal C9 Fingal
5,391,000mN 5,391,000mN
C7 Fingal
C6 Fingal
C5 Fingal
C2 Fingal Fingal Tier 85
C3 Fingal
C4 Fingal
Valley Mine Valley No. 2

Barbers
(Valley)
No. 1 Fingal Tier 48
Fingal Tier 49
FT-DOM4
Fingal Tier Fingal Tier 47
Fingal Tier 50
VR002 Fingal Tier 51
5,390,000mN VR005 5,390,000mN
Fingal Tier 37 VR004
FT-DOM38 Fingal Tier

C1 Fingal
VR003
FT-DOM5 Fingal Tier
FT-DOM14 Fingal Tier Fingal Tier 52 Fingal Tier 66
5,389,000mN 5,389,000mN
VR001
Fingal Tier 54
Fingal Tier 68
5,388,000mN 5,388,000mN
FT-DOM24 Fingal Tier Fingal Tier 69
LEGEND
.
Proposed Drill Hole
FT-DOM21 Fingal Tier MRT Drill Hole Location

Fingal 55B Pure Energy

Fingal Tier 55
FT-DOM27 Fingal Tier EL 16/2010 - FINGAL

FT-DOM16A Fingal Tier
Fingal Tier 35 Fingal Tier 46B
5,387,000mN
Fingal Tier 46A
Fingal Tier 73
Fingal Tier 56
FINGAL TIER 5,387,000mN
DRILL HOLE LOCATIONS
587,000mE
588,000mE
589,000mE
590,000mE
591,000mE
592,000mE
593,000mE
594,000mE
Compiled : Drawn : Date : Revised : Projection :
Fingal 41B Pure Energy
Fingal Tier 41 Ron Gregory Gillian Bennett 30/09/2011 : GDA94 Zone 55
Scale: 1:10000 File : Figure No.
Fingal Tier 39 0 125 250 500 m HRCM-FN-FT-
Base data from theLIST, © State of Tasmania DR-014.wor ..
GHD
201 Charlotte Street Brisbane QLD 4000

GPO Box 668 Brisbane QLD 4001
T: (07) 3316 3000 F: (07) 3316 3333 E: bnemail@ghd.com.au
© GHD 2011
This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purpose
for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission.
Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.
Document Status
Rev Reviewer Approved for Issue

Author
No. Name Signature Name Signature Date
A Sara Wodyk Daniel Holgate DLH Daniel Holgate DLH 22/11/11
0 Sara Wodyk Daniel Holgate Daniel Holgate 09/12/11
32/16074/11/428090 Fingal Coal Project


Haul Road

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Haul Road

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

RURAL PRIVATE PROPERTY

EXISTING BROAD-LEAF VEGETATION

EXSITING BUSHLAND MANAGED FOR

EXISTING FOREST MANAGED FOR

INFORMAL FOREST RESERVE FOR PRESERVATION

MIN. 20,000L WATER TANK WITH OPENING,

BUILDING PROTECTION ZONE

RURAL PRIVATE PROPERTY FUEL MODIFIED ZONE

FOR PRESERV A TION OF HABIT T AT

PAVEMENT TYPE - ALL-WEATHER CONSTRUCTION.

2 MIN. TRAFFICABLE WIDTH -

FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The desktop review found:

Sven Nielsen CPSS-2, Member Australian Geomechanics Society.

32/16074/55711 Fingal Tier Coal Mine

2. Site and Surrounds 3

3. Description of the Proposal 6

4. Planning Scheme Controls 10

5. Planning Scheme Assessment 12

32/16074/55711 Fingal Tier Coal Mine

32/16074/55711 Fingal Tier Coal Mine

1.1 Purpose of the Report

1.2 Title Information

1.3 Project Background

1.4 Statutory Status

32/16074/55711 Fingal Tier Coal Mine 1

1.5 Report Structure

32/16074/55711 Fingal Tier Coal Mine 2

2.1 Development Site

2.2 Neighbouring Property

2.3 Site Access

32/16074/55711 Fingal Tier Coal Mine 3

2.5 Physical Characteristics of the Subject Land

2.5.1 Slopes and Drainage

2.5.2 Land Stability and Geology

32/16074/55711 Fingal Tier Coal Mine 4

32/16074/55711 Fingal Tier Coal Mine 5

3.1 Proposal Overview

Haul road and vehicle access road, including stormwater system

Water improvement ponds, catchment/retention dam, and overflow energy dispersion

32/16074/55711 Fingal Tier Coal Mine 6

3.2 Clearance of Vegetation

32/16074/55711 Fingal Tier Coal Mine 7

3.6 Hours of Operation

3.7 Access and Transportation

32/16074/55711 Fingal Tier Coal Mine 8

3.9 Off-site Infrastructure

3.9.4 Electricity Connection and Supply

32/16074/55711 Fingal Tier Coal Mine 9

4.1 Statutory Reference

4.2 Status of Proposal

4.3 Use Classification

4.4 Planning Scheme Standards

a. are objectively verifiable measures; or

32/16074/55711 Fingal Tier Coal Mine 10

4.4.1 Natural Resources Zone

4.4.2 Applicable Codes

32/16074/55711 Fingal Tier Coal Mine 11

5.1 Natural Resources Zone Standards

Acceptable Solution/Performance Criteria Planning Assessment

32/16074/55711 Fingal Tier Coal Mine 12

32/16074/55711 Fingal Tier Coal Mine 13

Issue 3 – Development on Agricultural Land

Acceptable Solution/Performance Criteria Planning Assessment